Radiometric dating
- Thread starter Arikay
- Start date
Creationist sites are full of plenty of things that have been shown false, I addressed some of them in the OP. have you bothered to take a look?
So basically the only evidence you have can't be falsified or tested. You can believe whatever you want, but because you think C-14 is false, or someone else thinks aliens have abducted their cat to create a human-cat-alien master race, doesn't make it true.
So basically the only evidence you have can't be falsified or tested. You can believe whatever you want, but because you think C-14 is false, or someone else thinks aliens have abducted their cat to create a human-cat-alien master race, doesn't make it true.
Upvote
0
Wrong! It can. They just won't! They religiously select criteria that precludes real eyewitness and historical known events that prove a spiritual world! Even everyday miraculous healings, and such! 'Doesn't matter, if you can't get it in the lab, it just don't count, nya nya nya'.
I waded through the bigness, yes.
", there are many factors which could cause the date given to the fossil to be altered:
1.) Plants tend to "breath in" less C-14 than C-12, so the C-14/C-12 ratio is smaller in most plants when they die, thus making them appear to be older [1].
2.) The amount of C-14 in the atmosphere (and thus in all living organisms) changes from time to time. Or in other words, C-14 is not actually in equilibrium with C-12. During the industrial revolution, for example, when enormous amounts of fossil fuels were being burnt, more C-12 and less C-14 was in the atmosphere, making things appear to be older [1].
3.) The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the atmosphere would alter the amount of C-14 formed. Due to the sun's activity and the strength of the earth's magnetic field, (a stronger magnetic field reflects more cosmic rays) the amount of cosmic rays converting N-14 into C-14 varies [1].
4.) Assuming the account of the Great Flood in the Bible is true, we can deduce that tons and tons of Carbon were burried beneath the earth's surface, thus lowering the amount of C-12 and C-14 on earth and in the atmosphere. However, after that, no new C-12 was being produced but C-14 was being produced at the same rate. Therefore the C-12/C-14 ratio is lower now than it was before the flood. So since organisms before the flood had less C-14 in them, they appear now to have been decaying for years before they actually died [1].
5.) Volcanic emissions in general release gas with a larger C-12/C-14 ratio (very C-14 dilute). Since with modern models and Biblical descriptions of the Great Flood, we know that much volcanic activity accompanied the flood, fossils from the time of the flood would have much less C-14 in them when they die and thus appear to be older [1].
6.) The Bible says the rainbow at the end of the flood was the first rainbow ever. This obviously proves that some sort of atmospheric change had taken place during the flood and could have easily altered C-14 production [7].
7.) Today the atmosphere is still being altered by a number of factors such as global warming and holes in the ozone layer, so the amount of C-14 production still not constant " http://www.geocities.com/stuball127/dating.html
See what I mean about enough ammo to cast doubt on the less than 6000 year old stuff?
Upvote
0
"1.) Plants tend to "breath in" less C-14 than C-12, so the C-14/C-12 ratio is smaller in most plants when they die, thus making them appear to be older [1]."
I would recommend a bit more research. The site you copied this from referenced another site, which stated correctly that the ratio between C-12 and C-13 can be used to correct for this problem. Thus even according to the original reference material, there is no problem here.
"2.) The amount of C-14 in the atmosphere (and thus in all living organisms) changes from time to time. Or in other words, C-14 is not actually in equilibrium with C-12. During the industrial revolution, for example, when enormous amounts of fossil fuels were being burnt, more C-12 and less C-14 was in the atmosphere, making things appear to be older [1]. "
This is the reason C-14 needed to be calibrated. C-14 calibration can be done through a number of different means. Tree-ring dating, Varves, stalagmites. These calibrations can be double checked with each other.
The problem fossil fuels have created is known and few date very young samples without calibrating for errors. The is no problem here.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html
"3.) The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the atmosphere would alter the amount of C-14 formed. Due to the sun's activity and the strength of the earth's magnetic field, (a stronger magnetic field reflects more cosmic rays) the amount of cosmic rays converting N-14 into C-14 varies [1]. "
Yep, this is why C-14 isn't in equilibrium with C-12. However, calibration takes care of this. There is no problem here.
"4.) Assuming the account of the Great Flood in the Bible is true, we can deduce that tons and tons of Carbon were burried beneath the earth's surface, thus lowering the amount of C-12 and C-14 on earth and in the atmosphere. However, after that, no new C-12 was being produced but C-14 was being produced at the same rate. Therefore the C-12/C-14 ratio is lower now than it was before the flood. So since organisms before the flood had less C-14 in them, they appear now to have been decaying for years before they actually died [1]. "
Aren't you claiming C-14 is inaccurate because of assumptions? Isn't it a little hypocritical to claim that C-14 is inaccurate because of assumptions based on assumptions?
C-12 isn't being produced now. Burring carbon wont all of a sudden rid the world of C-12, it exists in all life and is a major element on earth. Carbon dating is based on carbon in the atmosphere, since this appears to assume the atmosphere still exists, it wouldn't adjust it much.
However, lets just assume their claims are correct, we can make predictions with them. If the flood caused a major disturbance in the C-14 ratio, it should be noticeable when we date objects. There should be a gap between pre flood and post flood dates. Post flood dates should appear about accurate and pre flood dates should appear vastly older. This is not observed. There is no problem here.
"5.) Volcanic emissions in general release gas with a larger C-12/C-14 ratio (very C-14 dilute). Since with modern models and Biblical descriptions of the Great Flood, we know that much volcanic activity accompanied the flood, fossils from the time of the flood would have much less C-14 in them when they die and thus appear to be older [1]. "
Again with the assumptions. Before you can claim something did something, you need to show the first something even exists. The independent calibration methods say it didn't. This supports the idea of a large gap between pre flood and post flood. Depending on the amount of volcanic contamination it is possible that during flood specimens should date much older than pre flood which should date much older than post flood, causing noticeable gaps. These don't appear. There is no problem here.
"6.) The Bible says the rainbow at the end of the flood was the first rainbow ever. This obviously proves that some sort of atmospheric change had taken place during the flood and could have easily altered C-14 production [7]. "
"Obviously proves"? Wow, talk about your baseless assumptions.
"Could have"? Something more substantial is needed.
There is obviously no problem here.
"7.) Today the atmosphere is still being altered by a number of factors such as global warming and holes in the ozone layer, so the amount of C-14 production still not constant "
Which isn't a big deal as long as we are able to calibrate the system. We can. There is no problem here.
"http://www.geocities.com/stuball127/dating.html "
I hope your next argument isn't to post the "inaccurate dates" list (some of wich the OP dealt with). If so, I would hope you will do some research into them, before you copy and paste it here.
"See what I mean about enough ammo to cast doubt on the less than 6000 year old stuff? "
I see absolutely no ammo here.
And I assume you mean more than 6000 year old stuff, and by that I assume you mean more than 4500 year old stuff.
I would recommend a bit more research. The site you copied this from referenced another site, which stated correctly that the ratio between C-12 and C-13 can be used to correct for this problem. Thus even according to the original reference material, there is no problem here.
"2.) The amount of C-14 in the atmosphere (and thus in all living organisms) changes from time to time. Or in other words, C-14 is not actually in equilibrium with C-12. During the industrial revolution, for example, when enormous amounts of fossil fuels were being burnt, more C-12 and less C-14 was in the atmosphere, making things appear to be older [1]. "
This is the reason C-14 needed to be calibrated. C-14 calibration can be done through a number of different means. Tree-ring dating, Varves, stalagmites. These calibrations can be double checked with each other.
The problem fossil fuels have created is known and few date very young samples without calibrating for errors. The is no problem here.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html
"3.) The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the atmosphere would alter the amount of C-14 formed. Due to the sun's activity and the strength of the earth's magnetic field, (a stronger magnetic field reflects more cosmic rays) the amount of cosmic rays converting N-14 into C-14 varies [1]. "
Yep, this is why C-14 isn't in equilibrium with C-12. However, calibration takes care of this. There is no problem here.
"4.) Assuming the account of the Great Flood in the Bible is true, we can deduce that tons and tons of Carbon were burried beneath the earth's surface, thus lowering the amount of C-12 and C-14 on earth and in the atmosphere. However, after that, no new C-12 was being produced but C-14 was being produced at the same rate. Therefore the C-12/C-14 ratio is lower now than it was before the flood. So since organisms before the flood had less C-14 in them, they appear now to have been decaying for years before they actually died [1]. "
Aren't you claiming C-14 is inaccurate because of assumptions? Isn't it a little hypocritical to claim that C-14 is inaccurate because of assumptions based on assumptions?
C-12 isn't being produced now. Burring carbon wont all of a sudden rid the world of C-12, it exists in all life and is a major element on earth. Carbon dating is based on carbon in the atmosphere, since this appears to assume the atmosphere still exists, it wouldn't adjust it much.
However, lets just assume their claims are correct, we can make predictions with them. If the flood caused a major disturbance in the C-14 ratio, it should be noticeable when we date objects. There should be a gap between pre flood and post flood dates. Post flood dates should appear about accurate and pre flood dates should appear vastly older. This is not observed. There is no problem here.
"5.) Volcanic emissions in general release gas with a larger C-12/C-14 ratio (very C-14 dilute). Since with modern models and Biblical descriptions of the Great Flood, we know that much volcanic activity accompanied the flood, fossils from the time of the flood would have much less C-14 in them when they die and thus appear to be older [1]. "
Again with the assumptions. Before you can claim something did something, you need to show the first something even exists. The independent calibration methods say it didn't. This supports the idea of a large gap between pre flood and post flood. Depending on the amount of volcanic contamination it is possible that during flood specimens should date much older than pre flood which should date much older than post flood, causing noticeable gaps. These don't appear. There is no problem here.
"6.) The Bible says the rainbow at the end of the flood was the first rainbow ever. This obviously proves that some sort of atmospheric change had taken place during the flood and could have easily altered C-14 production [7]. "
"Obviously proves"? Wow, talk about your baseless assumptions.
"Could have"? Something more substantial is needed.
There is obviously no problem here.
"7.) Today the atmosphere is still being altered by a number of factors such as global warming and holes in the ozone layer, so the amount of C-14 production still not constant "
Which isn't a big deal as long as we are able to calibrate the system. We can. There is no problem here.
"http://www.geocities.com/stuball127/dating.html "
I hope your next argument isn't to post the "inaccurate dates" list (some of wich the OP dealt with). If so, I would hope you will do some research into them, before you copy and paste it here.
"See what I mean about enough ammo to cast doubt on the less than 6000 year old stuff? "
I see absolutely no ammo here.
And I assume you mean more than 6000 year old stuff, and by that I assume you mean more than 4500 year old stuff.
Upvote
0
But these things also are subject to assumptions! And today's rates are known not to apply universally, depending on conditions, for tree rings and stags I believe?
Remember, I simply snipped one of hundreds of sites to show that recent carbon dates are subject to some doubt. So I guess you are talking there to the guy who wrote the article. But I'll answer. No, it's not hypocritical to assume the pre flood world and the flood year affected things. Some assumptions are OK. The ones that try to make God a liar are not cool with me. Why? I take the bible as evidence, along with the rest, and am not predudice against it's documented history. This adds weight to assumptions, and gives them value.
Todays atmosphere has changed. Wasn't it you who said we had some samples of older stuff somewhere? (Not in ice, I hope, as we are looking for pre flood air) Here is one link. http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,965924,00.html
So you believe in a flood, and can tell pre from post?
Interesting. You say there are callibration methods that show a large gap, pre and post flood? Then whatever these methods are, would prove there was a flood, whatever 'time frame' it was in? If not, how do they tell us of a gap in the pre and post flood?
Ha. Some of these creation comrades do tend to really squueze a fact for all they can get out of it!
Well, not really. I could live with something being dated older than the 4500 year old flood, long as it was not before the world was created!
Here's another snip. "After all field relationships have been established (i.e. stratigraphy, cross-cutting relationships, relative dating, etc.), samples from strata in question are thoroughly examined for their geochronological appropriateness. After sample(s) are deemed worthy of further analysis, then only the appropriate dating technique with an appropriate effective dating range is used. 8 [emphasis his]
This is not a valid approach for a scientist to take. It does not give an independent confirmation of the age of the rock. Selecting a dating method based on the presumed age of the rock merely puts a numerical value on a subjective prejudice. " http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v1i5f.htm
"The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a fix it as we go approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come to be accepted.
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.
[Lee, Robert. Radiocarbon, Ages in Error, Anthropological Journal of Canada, Vol. 19, No. 3, 1981, pp9,29.]" http://www.eadshome.com/RadiometricDating.htm
Really, all that is in question is the dating in the last 4500 years, I guess, so is there any particular bit dated you think is important in that time? If so, cut to the chase, and have out with it.
Upvote
0
Mechanical Bliss
Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.
It's always hilarious when creationists complain about scientists making assumptions--assumptions that are well substantiated because they are observed to be so and are confirmed by the relationships between independent research (which have never been addressed by creationists).
Then they turn around and start making assumptions of their own, which are not conclusions from any evidence, are not well substantiated, are not observed to be so, and are not confirmed by any research whatsoever...like this: "Another assumption I think would be that before death and decay entered the world, things were different."
The assumptions used in radiometric dating have been demonstrated to work (mainly because they are not mere assumptions, but conclusions from observation), so there's no reason to cry foul, especially if you can't explain why they are invalid yet work all the same.
The assumptions used by creationists are wishful thinking.
Then they turn around and start making assumptions of their own, which are not conclusions from any evidence, are not well substantiated, are not observed to be so, and are not confirmed by any research whatsoever...like this: "Another assumption I think would be that before death and decay entered the world, things were different."
The assumptions used in radiometric dating have been demonstrated to work (mainly because they are not mere assumptions, but conclusions from observation), so there's no reason to cry foul, especially if you can't explain why they are invalid yet work all the same.
The assumptions used by creationists are wishful thinking.
Upvote
0
Mechanical Bliss
Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.
dad said:
You are doing what you have done with every single other radiometric dating thread you've been in (and tried to derail with distractions).
You are ingoring the relationships Arikay has presented. That these relationships exist invalidates your objection. You continually avoid the relationships people are talking about.
Upvote
0
But the question is, are these unreasonable assumptions. It doesn't appear so. Tree rings for example, are claimed to be invalid because certain trees can grow an extra ring per year. Studies show that many trees are actually more likely to lose a ring than to grow and extra. Only individual trees grow extra rings, so the larger a sample group you have, the less likely a fake ring will enter into your count.
It appears stalagmites are the same. Understanding of the area and a large sample group, provides error correction.
I was partially talking to you, since you choose what you will copy and paste.
Ok, so assumptions are ok, as long as they support your claims. Sorry it doesn't work that way. It needs to be shown that the assumptions are not unreasonable, "I say so." does not do that.
C-14 dating doesn't make God a liar, as it only shows that your assumption of how the bible should be interpreted is incorrect. I find it telling that you appear to treat your ability to interpret the bible as infallible.
What exactly does an increase in oxygen 80 million years ago have to do with the carbon in the atmosphere within the last 50,000 years?
Please pay attention to what I wrote and don't take it out of context,
"There should be a gap between pre flood and post flood dates. Post flood dates should appear about accurate and pre flood dates should appear vastly older. This is not observed. There is no problem here."
Please pay attention to what I wrote. There should have been a return there, as it is slightly confusing. Actually read the whole paragraph.
The volcanic flood model supports the earlier idea that gaps should appear in C-14 if it really occured. They don't.
Then you disagree with everything you have posted. Please make up your mind. If the flood distorted the dates, then anything past 4500 years (or 4300 depending on when you put the flood) should appear old.
First I would like to point out that that site makes many errors about radiometric dating, a few the OP explained.
Now the quote. I don't see anything wrong in using previous data to understand current data. An analogy, your friend wants you to measure the distance of a tree from the house. You ask him what tool you should bring and he says, "Every other tree out in this area has been 60 to 120 feet away from the house and this tree doesn't seem odd." Knowing that, do you take a 1 foot ruler, a yard stick, a 25' tape measure or a 100' tape measure?
Many radiometric dating techniques will give anomalous readings when used outside their range, a good scientists can tell when that is happening and decide to change the method used. If there is question about the age of a sample, multiple techniques can be used as well.
Again I should point out the horrible inaccuracies in that site.
Take a look at the date of that quote, 1981. We have learned much since then.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
So, your opinion is noted, number one. Doesn't change a thing however there is a spirit world, and most of the world has always known it! WE could look at some of the fringe elements of the supernatural, as you bring up, but as an example, UFOs, were seen by credible witnesses, and even mentioned in the bible. As for the abduction baloney, that is something else.
Upvote
0
We can make assumptions as well or better than you! Not only that, ours check out with thee department of weights and measures! (the bible). They are wonderfully substansiated by the very word of God, and eyewitnesses galore! Observed by many of the same! It is only modern science that is totally unable to observe! Then it wants every knee to bow only to what it can see, which by design excludes God! Phooey on your has been so called science, a bright new day is dawning, and these darkest of all ages of men almost past!
And no one here has questioned them working in the box!! The whole point is that the box is not for long, it was not, and soon will not be, so why harp on it's meager contents?
They are Rock solid, irrefutible, and undeniable, not to mention cooler. The assumptions of old age evolution, like granny and the speck (hey any christian rock bands out there, sounds like a good name! 'Ladies and gentlemen, introducing, Granny, and the Specks'!) -are less than wishful thinking, they are mischeivious maddness!
Upvote
0
All Things considered, yes.
Now, maybe. But then, in a nice warm climate with all kinds of unknown, and exotic things at work? Hec, a different kettle of fish.
Not to creationists, apparently. If all you go by is present processes, why, you'd get a very skewed picture.
Well, if you ask the people of the box, they would be unreasonable, ask the people of the King, and you get another story. (except those who choses to live in the box of physical only evidence, of course, to each his own)
Of course not! But if you go with the box interpretation, it would make his word of no effect.
There was no 50,000,000 years ago! Only in the imagination of those using dating theology of the box!
Sorry. I read it forwards or backwards, but it seems to indicate that they know where the border between pre and post flood lies. Otherwise, how could they think they not observe something between post flood and pre flood? Maybe you could explain how they think there was no flood but seem to know what is post flood or pre flood?
Ahh. OK. this almost sounds like they don't know the difference. So some expect this and some expect that depending on the extents of the volcanoes, and how much was more of an ooze than a blow, etc. etc. Well, I think we know a lot of activity happened, is there someplace, or country, where you find something you think the flood should have affected otherwise?
OK lets stick with post flood then.
In other words, each previous set of assumptions from tree rings, or whatever, added together, with other sets of assumptions, as a starting point to make assumptions about the age of a specimen! Sounds like a stacked deck to me!
Well, not surprising, when we look at the nature of the beast there, that it should learn to put on a better face.
Upvote
0
dad said:
Many credible people have claimed to be abducted. According to your logic they must have been, because they say so. The same goes for big foot. seemingly credible people have also claimed to have achieved Cold Fusion. Do you think that they have. I mean, they say so, so how could it be wrong?
Upvote
0
Based on what? Your opinion. Nope sorry. We are talking about science here. Evidence please. If you have none, just say, "I have no scientific evidence that these assumptions are unreasonable."
Box? King? Are we talking about fast food establishments? If so, I would recomend the box over the king, in a recent report it ranked the box as number one for sanity ([sic]).
Ok, so if creationism only stands in the spiritual realm, then please don't make claims that C-14 is scientifically inaccurate, or that creationism is science at all. Whenever you meet a creationism who says creationism is science, I want you to correct them on that, tell them that creationism only stands up in the spiritual realm and only if you accept the assumption that a literal bible is right. But it has no scientific support.
Except for all those christians out there that accept evolution and/or an old earth. I noticed you left out the part about you treating your interpretation of the bible as infallible. Could it possible be that it is not C-14 or God that is in error but your own opinion?
Please actually read my posts and pay attention to them.
Did you even read what you wrote? You aren't making much sense.
It's simple. These distortions claimed by flood supports should be seen in the dating, but they are not.
Except that you haven't show how any of these things are inaccurate, beyond saying, "they are inaccurate because I am right."
Each different method would show different distortions or evidence of a flood. The fact that they show no evidence, and they agree supports C-14 dating.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
There are degrees of veracity. If several hundred witnesses saw the same thing, and it was confirmed 6 other ways from Sunday it would be one thing, like Jesus. If some lone teacher or whatever say they were abducted, we'd have to take it with a grain of salt. Maybe they were, say, by secret CIA misinformation teams, trying perhaps to add disbelief to UFO stories near a testing range. Or maybe some type of MKultra type operation was doing some 'research' and used that for the mind wash part. Or both. Or neither, etc etc.
But back say, in the days of Aimee Semple Macpherson, doctors attended many healings, and verified they were real, as well as many witnesses!
I'm sure India has it's share of mystic happenings as well, no doubt many would be worthy of real consideration. Then there's all the stigmata, and crying statue type stuff, could be a lot there of real note as well. No, you can't sluff it all off.
Upvote
0
Scientific evidence i.e. physical universe evidence, as I say is fine for the most part to see how it now goes down. Where we leave you in the dust, is when it is pointed out that this was not always nor will much linger be, the way it is. The only place the physical evidence would apply is in these decades, and centuries sandwiched in eternity. An eternity that has very different decay rates!
No He created the physical universe! I think it was merged at the time with the spiritual. So by no means spiritual only! It's just that after the split, we have the physical only, and it's processes of decay, etc. You can measure it, but you cannot measure it beyond it's bounds of several thousand years. Before, and after that, the spiritual is merged, and different processes apply! So as long as you stay off the dates, most things are fine, but try and presume the same process before the split, and it becomes irrelevant, because it wasn't the same!
No. The word is quite clear there. What you see happening, in my opinion, is that some take science as a certain fact, in the dates, as being older than the bible tells us. Then, they try to understand what God could really mean, to fit in with what we 'know'. So there are some theories, and interpretations they have come up with. I don't consider that really is my problem. So carbon in the air, or elsewhere in context of the split is no big challenge, any more than argon, etc. Just a present decay rate, nothing more.
That's what I'm trying to figure out, could you pinpoint one of these distortions you perceive, as to geographic location?
How is a tree that's dead going to show evidence of a flood? Anyhow, if htey assume there was no flood thats inaccurate. The guy had a point, if dating was so good, why can't it stsnd on it's own two feet? Why start with a group of things, each with it's own assumptions, and use the group as a 'callibrator'? It's just a bigger pile that way!
Upvote
0
My, how we have evolved since then. Did the scientists who verified all the past dumbness use themselves for physical evidence?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
So the word says that you read the bible infallibly?
Speaking of which, you do know that the bible doesn't actually tell us how old the world is, right? It's based on interpretations and theories and is rather inexact (different scholars have done the math and come up with different figures.)
Is this another case where it's ok for you to do something but not ok for other people?
If any existed, yes you could. It could even be possible to pinpoint which layers were laid down by the flood (a question often asked and rarely answered) and which were pre flood. Depending on how exact you could make the assumptions.
But more so these distortions would appear on graphs of C-14 dating. If you graphed specimens based on tree rings, ice cores or correct strata, and then graphed them based on C-14 dating, you should see large jumps in the C-14 dates. This isn't the case. What we see is a C-14 date that is slightly incorrect, but follows the other dates well.
Well, all post flood trees should have started growing around the same time. Tree rings should pretty much drop off and stop.
Interesting story. AiG used to accept tree ring dating, when they thought it showed the oldest living tree as younger than their flood date. When it was discovered that the oldest living tree is 400 years or so older than they thought, all of a sudden tree ring dating was invalid and error prone. I believe these contradicting positions can still be found on their FAQ page.
We have been talking about C-14 long enough, you should know why it needs to be calibrated. It is actually one of the few methods that needs calibration.
As pointed out before, these other methods agree with each other.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
