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 ...
“To: aimhigh
This is not a new discovery. It has been known for a long time. Secular scientists are doing everything they can to deny the Creation account in Genesis. Problem is....the facts keep getting in the way of their narrative.”
Dude .... it only shows an error of 20 years ...
Without time and space, we couldn’t have Experience. Everything would be happening all-at-once - as it probably, infinitely, does for God ;-)
I think many people have used carbon dating as proof that the timeline of the Bible is wrong - I have heard it many times throughout my academic life and since. I probably should have framed it more as “the Bible” and less as “God”, but those who seek to disprove the Bible as a fairy tale seek to disprove God.
It’s always an interesting debate, but I try not to get too wrapped up in it.
Well, I guess if you take the Bible absolutely literally on every point, you can see its ‘timeline’ as having to correspond to our Earthly one.
I don’t personally read it that way, and find it far more glorious and meaningful - and far more impressive upon the individual soul - when apprehended and psychologically assimilated as symbol and metaphor.
Ten years ago this would have been posted within the first three posts.
I always viewed God as the ultimate author. Ever read a fictional novel? Did the timeline start at page 1 or was there always a backstory? (Just explaining my view.)
The Bible is consistent with our current scientific knowledge. Major differences are a creation of man, not God.
LOL!
It's a long story, but if you're familiar with Ian Wilson's Shroud/Mandylion theory and have read the Byzantine history of the Mandylion it makes sense. Supposedly a King Abgar turned to Christianity following some sort of miraculous cure and having obtained the divinely-wrought image of Jesus on a cloth, placed the cloth above the city gates of Edessa to be venerated. Upon his death, his son reverted to paganism and ordered the image destroyed. Abgar's retainers, not wanting to destroy the image, bricked it up in a niche within the city walls. Six hundred years later, during the siege of the city it was discovered, along with a "tile" containing an exact duplicate of the image on the cloth.
If there's any truth to the story, it's my speculation that the original of the image was actually the tile, not the cloth, and that the cloth was meant as a covering for the tile. Over the course of hundreds of years, naturally-occurring radioactive material (the sort found in all sedimentary rock) gave off enough ionizing radiation to "slow-cook" the image onto the cloth.
And while none of this is miraculous, given the time involved, it means that the tile and the image contain a depiction of Jesus as he would have appeared to those who lived around the time of his mission. In the histories, Abgar was very particular about Jesus's appearance.
In my experience there are two attitudes toward the Shroud. One is that it is an utter hoax, and any attempt to explain it is a waste of time. The other is that it is an undoubted miracle that can have no natural explanation. One side is as pig-headed as the other.
That’s a very interesting story. I’m not acquainted with it, and will have to look into it. I don’t really have an opinion about this, except that it’s fascinating and extremely difficult to explain.
(However, at first blush, the story you relate seems just as unlikely - but even more convoluted - than the idea that the shroud was actually the burial cloth of a man; and that it was impressed, somehow, by...something...that...Happened.)
Carbon-14 is only used to map dates up to 50,000 years old.
...
You are taking all the fun out of being ignorant, you mean person ;-)
Yeah, I can be a pickle-puss that way.
Come on, common sense tells us that it took many millions and millions of years for the earth to cool off before life was possible and not just a matter of days!
Some old favorites which I've posted on FR from time time over the past 14 years.Carbon clock could show the wrong timeA study led by physicist Warren Beck of the University of Arizona discovered an enormous peak in the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere between 45 thousand and 11 thousand years ago. Living organisms and some geological features absorb stable carbon-12 and radioactive carbon-14, which are present in the air in a well-known ratio. Scientists use carbon dating to determine when objects ceased to absorb carbon by measuring how much of the carbon-14 - which has a half-life of 5730 years - has decayed. Beck and colleagues tested slices of a half-metre long stalagmite that grew between 45 000 and 11 000 years ago in a cave in the Bahamas. Galactic cosmic rays create most of the carbon-14 in our atmosphere, while solar cosmic rays generate a smaller fraction. The Earth is partially shielded from galactic cosmic rays by its own magnetic field and the solar magnetic field, which fluctuates as the solar cycle proceeds. These effects are predictable and are thought to have changed little in the last million years - which means they cannot explain the glut of carbon-14. The team speculates that a supernova shock wave could have produced a flurry of cosmic rays.The Testimony of Radiocarbon DatingTheir study could force a reappraisal of when certain events occurred, notably in the period when modern humans lived alongside Neanderthals in Europe... Dr David Richards of the School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol, made the study with colleagues in Arizona and Minnesota. He said: "Beyond about 20,000 years ago there are some dramatic swings in radiocarbon concentration, which means the age offset between the radiocarbon age and true calendar age can be up to 8,000 years." Radiocarbon dating, which depends on the steady decay of carbon-14, is less reliable if an artefact is older than 16,000 years. But the changes in radiocarbon, and dating, fluctuate greatly up to 45,000 years, the limit of the study.
and The Pitfalls of Radiocarbon Dating
by Immanuel Velikovsky
Stalagmite discovery throws doubt on carbon dating
by Charles Arthur Technology Editor
Carbon Dating Revision May Rewrite History
Dating study 'means human history rethink'
Carbon dating 'might be wrong by 10,000 years'
by Roger Highfield, Science Editor
Radiometric Dating: An Exercise in Faith
by Mark E. Howerter
Carbon dating 'might be wrong by 10,000 years'
by Roger Highfield
Saturday 30 June 2001Extremely large variations of atmospheric 14C concentration during the last glacial periodA long record of atmospheric 14C concentration, from 45 to 11 thousand years ago (ka), was obtained from a stalagmite with thermal-ionization mass-spectrometric 230Th and accelerator mass-spectrometric 14C measurements. This record reveals highly elevated Delta14C between 45 and 33 ka, portions of which may correlate with peaks in cosmogenic 36Cl and 10Be isotopes observed in polar ice cores. Superimposed on this broad peak of Delta14C are several rapid excursions, the largest of which occurs between 44.3 and 43.3 ka. Between 26 and 11 ka, atmospheric Delta14C decreased from approximately 700 to approximately 100 per mil, modulated by numerous minor excursions. Carbon cycle models suggest that the major features of this record cannot be produced with solar or terrestrial magnetic field modulation alone but also require substantial fluctuations in the carbon cycle.
Beck JW, Richards DA, Edwards RL,
Silverman BW, Smart PL, Donahue DJ,
Hererra-Osterheld S, Burr GS,
Calsoyas L, Jull AJ, Biddulph D.
Science
pub 2001 May 10Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective Dr. Roger C. Wiens
Thanks PGalt.
I see the usual group of know-nothings regurgitated their usual ignorance at the first opportunity.
The headline is spun up to elicit interest, and would be right at home on the cover of a supermarket checkstand tabloid.
Fluctuation of C14 levels has been known at least since the IGY, which began not long after RC dating was pioneered (early postwar; the baseline for dating was 1950), and lasted more than one year.
The reason the fluctuations are known is good old scientific research. That research has allowed RC dating to be calibrated.
Hey, this “news source” really looks reliable, too, check out their policy and politics page:
https://www.sciencealert.com/politics-policy
LOL!
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.
