Carbon dating accuracy debate updating two cells linked in excel
I read the scientific article on the carbon dating done on the Jericho site written by Bruins and Van Der Plicht.When I did the math from their results section of the YBP, they all turned out to be right around the year 1400 .Fourth, while it is true that we cannot know the past (this is the great limitation of experimental science), it is sometimes convenient to use the opposition's numbers against them.In the end, though, it seems to me there is little debate about the rate of decay in the historical era.I understand calibration might have something to do with this, but then in the article it says in italicized words that the uncalibrated date “Must Always Be Mentioned”. CMI’s Dr Rob Carter responds: Anthony, As a fan of biblical archaeology, I was asked to address your question.But when I read articles about the results, they never mention the uncalibrated data, which could actually be correct. I am not an expert in every subject that impinges on the discussion, but I will do my best.However, the "plateau" certainly does not equate to the Flood, for that would put the Flood in the middle of Egyptian history, the archaeological evidence of which is sitting on top of kilometers of Flood-deposited sediments. They also brought up the question of "old wood" (the fact that any wood used in an archaeological context must have been growing prior to when it was harvested), which affects my point #3, and warned against using organic material from an aquatic context, corroborating my point #2. Carbon dates can be used to tell the age of organic materials up to around 50,000 years.
However, I will stand by my statement with this defense: First, we do not need changing decay rates to explain 14C dating.
A single experiment can prove me wrong." Please consult our Radiometric Dating Q&A section for answers to many of the questions you are asking. Carter incorrectly states "The rate of decay is also not in question.".
On this site alone there have been statements disputing the constancy of radioactive decay.
Examples: For all of these, and more, reasons, calibration is needed in C-14 dating.
Thus, reports generally specify the ‘raw’ numbers and the ‘fudged’ numbers.
There are enough uncertainties in the physical history of earth to throw great uncertainty on the early dates.