Radiocarbon dating example problem brian regan are you dating anyone viacom
But, lets be extremely conservative and say a 50,000 years old date is off by half. Kitagawa, H., and van der Plicht, J., (1998), Atmospheric radiocarbon calibration to 45,000 yr B. That still puts the earth at over 20,000 years old. P: Late glacial fluctuations and cosmogenic isotope production, Science, v. C14 was originally calibrated using Egyptian artifacts of "known" age on the "standard" chronology. (1991) Radiocarbon Dating: Recent Applications and Future Potential, Quaternary Proceedings, Number 1, 1991, Wiley Even though this is not my field of study, I happen to have several of these in my files already.If that chronology is wrong, as many think, the calibration is wrong. But don't forget to compare to what is already available on creation.com: See: The walls of Jericho, The story of Jericho, and Q and A pages on the Ice Age and radiometric dating.See also this useful offsite resource: Jericho chronology dispute. Robert Carter Yes, I read the article, but I still find it strange that there are multiple observations which point to billions of years of time, yet the Bible is the only thing which points to a few thousand years of time.This does not mean that recalibration is bad, indeed it is necessary, but it should make one more soberly assess any reported dates as being tentative.
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.
On this site alone there have been statements disputing the constancy of radioactive decay.
One such is FYIIndeed, as can be found in several more articles here:
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.