Posted on 06/06/2018 3:34:21 PM PDT by aimhigh
One of the most important dating tools used in archaeology may sometimes give misleading data, new study shows - and it could change whole historical timelines as a result.
The discrepancy is due to significant fluctuations in the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere, and it could force scientists to rethink how they use ancient organic remains to measure the passing of time.
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencealert.com ...
Sounds like valid logic to me!
I think the author has a different definition of the word "significant" than I do. He's talking about measurements that are up to 20 years off... hardly significant, considering that the range of C14 dating is 50,000 years or even longer with sophisticated techniques. An error of 20/50,000, or 0.04%, is hardly "significant." In the scientific world, we would call such a small error a component of "background noise."
background radiation is not constant geographically so production of carbon 14 is inconsistent too.
The issue is the calibration you use during each different period of time.
It works sort of like your car speedometer. There is always a little error. But how much? At different speeds the % of error is different. And that error changes depending on rolling friction, humidity, tear wear, etc.
The same with carbon14 dating. Living things get their carbon14 from air and stop doing that when they die. Carbon14 is radioactive and at death, “boils off” at a known rate, reducing its concentration. We can measure that.
The air concentration of carbon14 has always varied. Also, the S hemisphere has more water and thus less carbon14. Sunspots, volcanic eruptions, etc. change that concentration.
So, we can calibrate pretty accurately by counting tree rings and pinning that to the carbon14 concentration, pretty crispy. We’ve done that with trees 8,000 years old.
Beyond that, it’s guess work beyond about 95% accuracy.
Carbon 14 is strictly short term dating. Lots of other isotopes for longterm results.
C-14 dating is much more accurate than 50 years ago.
This has been pointed out for scores of years
It’s a pretty good technique, I think, but not if you’re looking for pinpoint accuracy.
This is not new information. My father worked on the calibration of carbon14 dating back in the 60’s, at the National Bureau of Standards. They were aware of the need to include the proportions of C14 vs C12 in the atmosphere at the time of the of the formation of the organic substance, in order to get the most precise dating. That is why, among other things, the dates are always given as a range e.g. 1000 to 2000 before the present.
I've gotten the same thing for saying that the Shroud of Turin is a natural, unintended phenomenon. Both sides.
Leave the believers alone. If they stop believing, they’ll stop doing what they’re told. That would be bad for all of us.
Would we know Great Age if we saw it? What on this earth looks millions of years old? How would we know it? The oldest living thing on earth is, I think, 4400 years old. Roughly, just after “the deluge”
Reminds me of a cartoon of Frank and Ernest.
One said “Oh, no, I really hate this birthday today (looking at his driver’s license).
Why?
“Every organ I’m going to donate has passed its Best If Used Before date.”
Gorebull warming and Climate Change are two prime examples.
Well known scientific liesxfor at least a couple of decdes. I cant believe people still believe it. From the same minds that said the hymalayas will melt by 2035.
Actually, the Shroud fascinates me - there are so many questions.
What do you mean when you say that it’s ‘natural’ and ‘unintended’?
It seems to me that both could be true, while the Shroud remained inexplicable by current science; and thus considered SUPERnatural.
I don’t really believe in the notion of ‘supernatural’ - if something happens, it’s Natural, though we may not understand it yet - but we’re stuck with the language, for now...
(I can’t remember who it was - perhaps one of the Huxleys - who said that if he saw something that seemed ‘supernatural’, he would not assume that it was so; but that it must have been operating according to a law that science simply hadn’t grasped yet.)
What does this do for supposed charts of global temperatures going back before 200 years?
Do you believe that the cave paintings in the Ardèche, Dordogne, etc., are less than 5,000 years old?
We think in a human constructs such as time. What would time be to a creator who could speak a world or universe into existence? Using carbon dating to prove or disprove the existence of God is a futile exercise because it confines something far beyond even our most basic comprehension to the same constraints that we, mere biological beings with a limited lifespan, have to live within.
Everyone has free will to decide for themselves what they believe or do not believe, but even the most brilliant physicists are incapable of truly explaining or defining the universe because it, like God, has no limits, no boundary, no beginning, and no end.
If we accept that we cannot understand “God” the world makes more sense (at least for me it does). Carbon dating as proof of the existence of God is no different than asking if God is subject to the laws of thermodynamics or gravity. At some point, it simply does not compute unless you accept the idea that a law of man could prove or disprove God or the Bible.
I’m confused. Whoever said that ‘Carbon dating’ was ‘proof of the existence of God’?
Excellent point. Why does anyone think that God reckons time the way that we do. If He has no beginning and no end, then how could his time be like our time? In fact, I believe that He invented the concept of time, for our benefit-not His. He created all things. Try to fit our microscopic understanding into His is a fool’s errand, in my opinion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.