"when a wrong date is given it almost always turns out to be far older than the carbon dating suggested"
"Even so, there is always an occasional wrong date. Doesn't mean a thing."
OK, if you say so.
Credibility.
OK, if you say so.
Credibility.
You challenge my credibility in dating? I have done hundreds of radiocarbon dates, and have been studying the field for many years. And your expertise is... ?
The reason I say that an occasional wrong date doesn't mean a thing is that these things sometimes happen. There are always slight chances of sample contamination, collection mistakes, or even (rare) laboratory mix-ups. Anytime humans are involved there is the potential for error.
What we do when this happens is run more dates, to see if it can be repeated or if it is an isolated occurrence. On a site I am currently working on there was a gap between the two oldest dates of about 1200 years. That made me question the accuracy of that older date, so I submitted some more samples and got one right in between the two oldest ones. This gives that old date a lot more confidence.
By the way, this site has 18 radiocarbon dates currently, with 9 more being processed. That will be a total of 27 dates. This lets us establish the regularities of the occupation, identify any breaks in the occupation, and identify any problem dates.
Credibility? Yes, I think I have some.
Your turn.