to the scientifically minded: (radioactive) carbon dating of ancient structures may have flaws

by Seva Lamberdar Sat Jan 12, 2013 2:48 pm

The following is comment, sounds quite reasonable, by Dr. A. Mehra to a blog on ancient finds / structures in Turkey.

".. who knows what lies hidden across the globe, below huge piles of dust and mud and rock and earth?
As far as dating of (any) finds is concerned, while I accept it broadly it, one question always bothers me, and no one has ever been able to give me a satisfactory answer (actually, there CAN be no satisfactory answer to this question): any number of things can change the relative ratios of the isotopes of various elements, like radiation from the sun or from space, volcanic eruptions (maybe), temperature and climatic changes, and, who knows, even changes in the earth's magnetic field, or even nuclear war... (I say all this in a very "unscientific" manner, as mere conjecture, but my point is that there must be many other factors too, which we cannot even imagine). So, if the relative rations of isotopes change, where are we left? How do we determine "age"? And this calls into question which civilization (or just which archaeological structure) is older? Which was possible when, with what technology and facilities? These are question which probably no one will ever be able to answer." (comment by Dr. Arun Mehra)

Ref. http://creative.sulekha.com/gobekli-tepe-10-000-bc-and-understanding-human-civilization_597553_blog

by Seva Lamberdar Sat Jan 12, 2013 3:49 pm

Limitations of Radiocarbon Dating

<p>

"... carbon-14 dating has been shown to be far from perfect in measuring organic material. Seals that were freshly killed have been dated at 1,300 years old. Also, when scientists tested two parts of a frozen musk ox found in Fairbanks, Alaska, two vastly different dates were given. Radiocarbon testing falsely showed that one part of the musk ox was 24,000 years old, while another part was only 7,200 years old. .... ."

Ref. : http://www.apologeticspress.org/DiscoveryPubPage.aspx?pub=2&issue=844&article=811

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558

by Seva Lamberdar Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:04 pm

Here is another quote.

'No matter how "useful" it is though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read.'

Robert E. Lee, Radiocarbon: Ages in Error. Anthropological Journal of Canada, vol. 19 (3), 1981, pp. 9-29

http://www.chcpublications.net/radcarbn.htm (worth a read)

by Sponsored content

to the scientifically minded: (radioactive) carbon dating of ancient structures may have flaws

to the scientifically minded: (radioactive) carbon dating of ancient structures may have flaws

Re: to the scientifically minded: (radioactive) carbon dating of ancient structures may have flaws

Re: to the scientifically minded: (radioactive) carbon dating of ancient structures may have flaws

Re: to the scientifically minded: (radioactive) carbon dating of ancient structures may have flaws