Sex sport women spycam - Carbon dating accuracy debate

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 .

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.

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:

Dendrochronology is used to determine variations in the C14/C12 ratio, but dendrochronology has assumptions that are not always valid (see bristlecone pine dating). Yes, a decreasing magnetic field strength would allow for more cosmic rays to enter the atmosphere over time, which would induce increased rates of 14C production and throw off any ancient measurement with respect to modern values.

One such is FYIIndeed, as can be found in several more articles here:

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.The first excavations were performed prior to WWII, and supported the biblical chronology.When Kathleen Kenyon came away from her study in the 1950s and essentially announced ‘I see no evidence for the destruction of Joshua here,’ she was basing her opinions, in part, on the new field of radiocarbon dating.And uncalibrated dates are usually only off by less than 20%. (1952) Radiocarbon dating, University of Chicago Press.

Tags: , ,