[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Creationism/Evolution
See other Creationism/Evolution Articles

Title: A Crucial Archaeological Dating Tool Is Wrong, And It Could Change History as We Know It
Source: [None]
URL Source: https://www.sciencealert.com/radioc ... egion-calibration-inaccuracies
Published: Jun 6, 2018
Author: MIKE MCRAE
Post Date: 2018-06-06 21:41:38 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 35056
Comments: 248

One of the most important dating tools used in archaeology may sometimes give misleading data, new study shows - and it could change whole historical timelines as a result.

The discrepancy is due to significant fluctuations in the amount of carbon- 14 in the atmosphere, and it could force scientists to rethink how A comparison of radiocarbon ages across the Northern Hemisphere suggests we might have been a little too hasty in assuming how the isotope - also known as radiocarbon - diffuses, potentially shaking up controversial conversations on the timing of events in history.

By measuring the amount of carbon-14 in the annual growth rings of trees grown in southern Jordan, researchers have found some dating calculations on events in the Middle East – or, more accurately, the Levant – could be out by nearly 20 years.

That may not seem like a huge deal, but in situations where a decade or two of discrepancy counts, radiocarbon dating could be misrepresenting important details.

The science behind the dating method is fairly straightforward: nitrogen atoms in the atmosphere hit with cosmic radiation are converted into a type of carbon with eight neutrons. This carbon – which has an atomic mass of 14 – has a chance of losing that neutron to turn into a garden variety carbon isotope over a predictable amount of time.

By comparing the two categories of carbon in organic remains, archaeologists can judge how recently the organism that left them last absorbed carbon-14 out of its environment.

Over millennia the level of carbon-14 in the atmosphere changes, meaning measurements need to be calibrated against a chart that takes the atmospheric concentration into account, such as INTCAL13.

The current version of INTCAL13 is based on historical data from North America and Europe, and has a fairly broad resolution over thousands of years. Levels do happen to spike on a local and seasonal basis with changes in the carbon cycle, but carbon-14 is presumed to diffuse fast enough to ignore these tiny bumps.

At least, that was the assumption until now.

"We know from atmospheric measurements over the last 50 years that radiocarbon levels vary through the year, and we also know that plants typically grow at different times in different parts of the Northern Hemisphere," says archaeologist Sturt Manning from Cornell University.

"So we wondered whether the radiocarbon levels relevant to dating organic material might also vary for different areas and whether this might affect archaeological dating."

The tree rings were samples of Jordanian juniper that grew in the southern region of the Middle East between 1610 and 1940 CE. By counting the tree rings, the team were able to create a reasonably accurate timeline of annual changes in carbon-14 uptake for those centuries.

Alarmingly, going by INTCAL13 alone, those same radiocarbon measurements would have provided dates that were older by an average of 19 years.

The difference most likely comes down to changes in regional climates, such as warming conditions. Extrapolating the findings back to earlier periods, archaeologists attempting to pinpoint Iron Age or Biblical events down to a few years would no doubt have a serious need to question their calibrations.

One controversial example is the dating of a single layer of archaeology at the Bronze and Iron Age city buried at Tel Rehov.

Just a few decades of difference could help resolve an ongoing debate over the extent of Solomon's biblical kingdom, making findings like these more than a minor quibble in a politically contested part of the world.

"Our work indicates that it's arguable their fundamental basis is faulty – they are using a calibration curve that is not accurate for this region," says Manning.

Collecting additional data from different geographical areas and taking a closer look at historical climate trends could help sharpen calibration techniques, especially in hotly debated regions.

For the time being, archaeologists covering history in the Levant are being advised to take their dates with a pinch of salt.

This research was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.they use ancient organic remains to measure the passing of time.

www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/05/23/1719420115

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 35.

#7. To: A K A Stone (#0)

The tree rings were samples of Jordanian juniper that grew in the southern region of the Middle East between 1610 and 1940 CE. By counting the tree rings, the team were able to create a reasonably accurate timeline of annual changes in carbon-14 uptake for those centuries.

Alarmingly, going by INTCAL13 alone, those same radiocarbon measurements would have provided dates that were older by an average of 19 years.

The difference most likely comes down to changes in regional climates, such as warming conditions. Extrapolating the findings back to earlier periods, archaeologists attempting to pinpoint Iron Age or Biblical events down to a few years would no doubt have a serious need to question their calibrations.

One controversial example is the dating of a single layer of archaeology at the Bronze and Iron Age city buried at Tel Rehov.

Just a few decades of difference could help resolve an ongoing debate over the extent of Solomon's biblical kingdom, making findings like these more than a minor quibble in a politically contested part of the world.

Hmmm...I see their assertions here but was unaware that anyone considered 19 years margin of error in carbon dating to be significant. No one ever considered it that accurate to begin with.

Nor do they detail how they think a difference of 19 years would give us more meaningful info about the size and distribution of Solomon's kingdom. Or why that would have a modern geopolitical impact.

Maybe there is something to this academic dispute but the article hasn't fleshed it out for the reader.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-06-07   0:26:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: Tooconservative (#7)

Hmmm...I see their assertions here but was unaware that anyone considered 19 years margin of error in carbon dating to be significant.

It's not even an eye blink when related to the age of the planet.

sneakypete  posted on  2018-06-07   8:37:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: sneakypete (#15)

It's not even an eye blink when related to the age of the planet.

Sure but science doesn't date the earth's age by carbon dating. They use other means of providing an estimate.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-06-07   9:56:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: Tooconservative (#20)

Sure but science doesn't date the earth's age by carbon dating. They use other means of providing an estimate.

The means used rely on radioactive decay, which is a function of "c".

There are two things to note.

First: radioactive decay rates are affected by the strength of solar output. We don't know why, but it has been observed in some experiments.

Second:

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-06-07   13:37:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: Vicomte13 (#21)

Scientific American:

It was not until 1926, when (under the influence of Arthur Holmes, whose name recurs throughout this story) the National Academy of Sciences adopted the radiometric timescale, that we can regard the controversy as finally resolved. Critical to this resolution were improved methods of dating, which incorporated advances in mass spectrometry, sampling and laser heating. The resulting knowledge has led to the current understanding that the earth is 4.55 billion years old.

That takes us to the end of this series of papers but not to the end of the story. As with so many good scientific puzzles, the question of the age of the earth resolves itself on more rigorous examination into distinct components. Do we mean the age of the solar system, or of the earth as a planet within it, or of the earth-moon system, or the time since formation of the earth’s metallic core, or the time since formation of the earliest solid crust? Such questions remain under active investigation, using as clues variations in isotopic distribution, or anomalies in mineral composition, that tell the story of the formation and decay of long-vanished short-lived isotopes. Isotopic ratios between stable isotopes both on the earth and in meteorites are coming under increasingly close scrutiny, to see what they can tell us about the ultimate sources of the very atoms that make up our planet. We can look forward to new answers—and new questions. That’s how science works.

Carbon dating plays little if any role in current estimates of the earth's age. It's too flawed.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-06-07   13:46:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: Tooconservative (#22)

Carbon dating plays little if any role in current estimates of the earth's age. It's too flawed.

No, it's too SHORT. Carbon dating is only good back about 50,000 years.

By that point, the C-14 is all gone. You need more stable, longer-lived radioactive isotopes, Uranium and the like, to measure oceans of time. 50,000 years is a pond.

Dinosaurs are not dated by Carbon 14.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-06-07   15:12:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: Vicomte13 (#26)

Dinosaurs or indirectly dated using carbon 14. Assumption piled on assumption piles on assumption it's a circle jerk reasoning

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-06-07   15:31:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: A K A Stone (#29)

Assumption piled on assumption piles on assumption

It does make the knowledge less than certain, I agree.

The main problem is that all radioactive dating techniques rely upon an underlying assumption of a relatively uniform state of decay, which is fundamentally driven by "c". If c was faster in the past, the clock is not constant.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-06-07   23:29:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 35.

        There are no replies to Comment # 35.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 35.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com