How does radiocarbon dating actually work?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Radiocarbon is only useful at all on dates up to several half lives
It is inappropriate for millions of years.

It is indicative , not definitive.
it also depends what is being tested


So stated the ONLY archeologist involved in the shroud project ( meacham) noted from a mass of experience of dating errors. It cannot be used in isolation . It corroborates other evidence.

It needs many empirical adjustments, for example for diet On animal remains.

On textiles it can be very suspect eg . eg Mummies much younger than the wrappings !



The shroud is a serious warning on the validity of RC on textiles.

RC needs proper blind controls and validation. It is invalid without,

On an anciebt fabric test done a year before the shroud test by TIte and the same RC labs showed. AMS made horrendous errors. It should never have been used on the shroud, the machines failed basic equipment qualification,
It was conveniently ignored in violation of all good practice.

The results of the shroud failed basic audit trail and homogeneity.
the outcome was statistically invalid. There was no date.
the results were then fiddled for Nature!

Atheists ditched all scientific integrity when analysing the shroud.
they made all the mistakes you can.

but as meacham - the ONLY archeologist involved said in the period leading up to it, RC is indicative not definitive.

Serious question: why do you bring up the Shroud of Turin in almost EVERY thread you enter into, even when the thread is not even remotely talking about it?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Atheists ditched all scientific integrity when analysing the shroud.

The Church set the basic protocol. Did they hire a bunch of atheists to carry it out?

 

[Mountainmike]

The Church set the basic protocol. Did they hire a bunch of atheists to carry it out?

It’s a good convenient myth.

Now study the history Instead.
Read merinos book, find the full horror of what was a fraud, all the emails and letters


The daters ignored the protocols ( set by such as meacham )
they ignored , all good practice, and excluded everyone from sturp who knew about the shroud, they failed basic sampling audit trail. They ignored all the red flags, ignored a failed equipment qualification, colluded on what should have been a blind trial, failed to involve a supervising metrology lab agreed as part of the protocol..

Gove inventor of AMS railroaded all competent people out of the way, so none were there on the day , he wanted it to promote AMS, so was onky interested in consistency not accuracy, and he even screwed up on that.


Then FIDDLED the results when they were not homogenous
Tite got a chair at Oxford for his part in what was a fraud,
Even tite now admits it’s a real crucified man!
quietly so atheists don’t hear him admit he screwed up …


It took a decade for the truth to trickle out., and even now the atheist faith is so strong that atheists won’t believe the truth.

meacham the ONLY archeologist protested every step of the way, read his book.

Now challenge the technical points I made ( annd meacham made) Instead.
RC is indicative, not definitive.
on the shroud it failed, or rather, the atheist machine operators - I refuse to call them daters - failed professionally, in every way possible.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Now challenge the technical points I made Instead.

Hey, you chose to baselessly slander atheists. You should just retire from the field apologetically (like the sorry kind) if you're not going to provide any evidence.

 

[linux.poet]

I'd also recommend familiarizing yourself with basic concepts of geology (if you aren't already). Superposition, lateral continuity, inclusions, faunal succession, original horizontality, and cross cutting relations.

No one interested in geology should ever begin with things like radiometric dating. I feel like YECs intentionally focus on weird topics that really are kind of secondary to geology and they just confuse a lot of people.

I didn’t even know that radiometric dating involved geology. I suppose that’s a sign of how much of a fool I am. I gotta start somewhere with trying to establish what this concept is. In the future I will try to have more of a respect for the field - I understand that you can’t just gloss over the details or basics of a field of knowledge. (Many times I have seen people try to do web design without bothering to learn the basics of HTML and CSS, to disastrous results. )

I understand how you got off on this because the YEC position was posted by another, but in my viewpoint ranting about the YEC approach to geology is a bit of a straw man. I do not have any beliefs about the age of the earth because I’ve never had sufficient information with which to develop them. I would rather take the time to develop an informed opinion.

With all that being said, I believe I have a sufficient answer to my question I asked in OP. I have several avenues for further research and inquiry, but I think I will pursue those on my own away from this topic.

Basic radiometric dating isn't too hard to understand and with organic artifacts and radiocarbon, you don't even need geology. Most people should have seen it by the end of HS.

Noted. My AP Biology teacher in high school failed to cover this, so that’s how we got here. My chemistry and physics classes also did not cover it. This was secular public school too.
.

 

[Mountainmike]

Hey, you chose to baselessly slander atheists. You should just retire from the field apologetically (like the sorry kind) if you're not going to provide any evidence.

Now challenge the technical points.
and if you comment on history, like role of the church, check facts first.

like how can you use equipment that failed qualification for a test?
how is it ever legitimate to ignore sampling protocol, breach a blind trial or FIDDLE data
All in violation of protocol and advice from the ONLY archeologist

And if you read what Gove, Halls and others wrote , all documented in email and letter, it was precisely BECAUSE they were ATHEIST they threw all professional behaviour out. They assumed an answer then fiddled the data to fit Their assumption.

You should retire from the field , because you know nothing about shroud dating .
atheists are happy to slander those they call “ creationist”, so don’t try to play high ground.

Confine yourself to technical comment on the shroud RC dating fraud, as I did .

The main point I made - RC dating is indicative not definitive. So speaks archeology.

And the shroud really is a crucified man, the one who ran the tests admitted it 20 years later - quietly so nobody would hear him destroy the reputation of all involved. It was not as halls and tite , the one who led it, claimed at the time “ faked it up and flogged it” .

 

[Job 33:6]

I didn’t even know that radiometric dating involved geology. I suppose that’s a sign of how much of a fool I am. I gotta start somewhere with trying to establish what this concept is. In the future I will try to have more of a respect for the field - I understand that you can’t just gloss over the details or basics of a field of knowledge. (Many times I have seen people try to do web design without bothering to learn the basics of HTML and CSS, to disastrous results. )

I understand how you got off on this because the YEC position was posted by another, but in my viewpoint ranting about the YEC approach to geology is a bit of a straw man. I do not have any beliefs about the age of the earth because I’ve never had sufficient information with which to develop them. I would rather take the time to develop an informed opinion.

With all that being said, I believe I have a sufficient answer to my question I asked in OP. I have several avenues for further research and inquiry, but I think I will pursue those on my own away from this topic.

Noted. My AP Biology teacher in high school failed to cover this, so that’s how we got here. My chemistry and physics classes also did not cover it. This was secular public school too.
.

Thanks. And apologies for my own shortness. Some of us here im sure have been beating this same drum for decades now. I often tend to forget the rare occasions where there are actual human being on the other side of the screen. All the best.

Id recommend also supplementing studies of science with biblical studies as well. I've come to find that most Evangelical Bible scholars, as it turns out, aren't YEC either. From the Bible itself there are pretty blunt and direct ways to refute YECism.

This video summarizes some basic issues with YECism.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The main point I made - RC dating is indicative not definitive. So speaks archeology.

And the non-dating evidence is fairly conclusively against "authenticity".

And the shroud really is a crucified man, the one who ran the tests admitted it 20 years later - quietly so nobody would hear him destroy the reputation of all involved. It was not as halls and tite , the one who led it, claimed at the time “ faked it up and flogged it” .

It's definitely a picture of a crucified man. I'll give you that.

 

[HARK!]

MOD HAT ON

Per the OP's request:

MOD HAT OFF​