Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: Coyoteman

Actually not.

When radiocarbon dating is inconsistent, various excuses like 'exposure to ancient carbon sources' is invoked. I believe this was in response to the discovery that some modern shells exhibited ancient radiocarbon dates.

Also, tree-ring chronologies are based on the assumption that you can correlate pieces of wood laying around with each other, that you can correctly count rings (much more difficult than admitted) and that each ring represents a year (often not the case).


586 posted on 05/02/2006 10:15:48 AM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 561 | View Replies ]


To: GourmetDan
When radiocarbon dating is inconsistent, various excuses like 'exposure to ancient carbon sources' is invoked. I believe this was in response to the discovery that some modern shells exhibited ancient radiocarbon dates.

Check out "reservoir effect" and "Delta-R" in regard to dating shellfish. This stuff is pretty well known. No way you can stretch the small amounts of inherent error to get young earth out of radiocarbon dating.

599 posted on 05/02/2006 10:30:05 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Creationists know Jack Chick about evolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 586 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson