[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: 35064
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 # 39.

#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  


#34. To: Tooconservative (#22)

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

It's not just that. All of the Carbon 14 is gone after 50,000 years, so you can't use it to tell the difference between 51,000 and 500 million years old: zero is zero.

Carbon dating no longer provides any information before 48,000 BC or so.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-06-07   23:26:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: Vicomte13 (#34)

It's not just that. All of the Carbon 14 is gone after 50,000 years, so you can't use it to tell the difference between 51,000 and 500 million years old: zero is zero.

Carbon dating no longer provides any information before 48,000 BC or so.

I'm not sure why you keep repeating this since it is not true. It is not zero C14 after 50,000 years at all.

We have methods of carbon dating that go back as far as 75,000 years and we could develop it further if we wanted to. We just don't have any real need to do so as we have other isotopes to measure and other dating methods we use.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-06-08   3:08:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: Tooconservative (#36)

I'm not sure why you keep repeating this since it is not true. It is not zero C14 after 50,000 years at all.

We have methods of carbon dating that go back as far as 75,000 years and we could develop it further if we wanted to. We just don't have any real need to do so as we have other isotopes to measure and other dating methods we use.

I keep repeating it because it is true.

Carbon-14 has a half life of 5730 years, under presently observed conditions, and there isn't all that much of it to begin with. In living tissue, there is about 1 C-14 atom for every trillion Carbon atoms. One part per trillion, 1 C-14 atom for every 10 to the 12th Carbon atoms. That's a low concentration.

Let's consider a human body. By weight, carbon makes up only 18.5% of the human body. So a 150 pound living man is composed of 27.75 pounds of carbon, 99% of that carbon is C-12, 1% is C-14. So, 2.775 times 10 to the negative 11th power pounds of C-14 atoms are in the living man, which is to say that there are 623,879,200,000,000,000 C-14 atoms in a living 150 pound man. Once he stops breathing and stops eating, there is no more C-14 being added.

The half life is 5730. So, in 5730 years there will be 311,939,600,000,000,000 C-14 atoms left in his remains. Of course, if there are any remains, they will have been diluted by whatever is preserving them.

In 11,460 years there will be 155,969,800,000,000,000 C-14 atoms left

In 17,190 years there will be 77,984,900,000,000,000 C-14s left.

In 22,920 years, there will be 38,992,450,000,000,000 C-14s left.

In 28,650 years there will be 19,496,225,000,000,000 C-14s left.

In 34,380 years there will be 9,748,112,500,000,000 C-14s left.

In 40,110 years there will be 4,874,056,250,000,000 C-14s left.

In 45,840 years there will be 2,437,028,125,000,000 C-14s left.

In 51,610 years there will be 1,218,514,962,500,000 C-14s left.

That isn't much left from the original same, less than two-tenths of one percent.

And of course this assumes that one is carbon dating a whole, intact human corpse, a 150 pound sample. Radiocarbon dating is not done on 150 pound samples. The machines can't hold anything like that. The sample sizes used are 100 GRAM samples - THAT is what fits into the machines.

So, let's take the remains of that 150 pound man and look at the actual sample size we can test. 150 pounds is 67200 grams. We're only going to be able to test .0014880952380952 of that sample.

So, at the 51,610 year point, there are only 1,813,266,313,244 C-14 atoms left in the testable sample. That's small, but detectable.

Go one cycle further, to 57,340 years, and the number of atoms in the total sample drops to the 902,633,156,622 range, which is quite a bit smaller than the US budget in dollars, and at the bare limits of our ability to detect.

Using very long test times and super-sensitive equipment, that have been able to manage to extend Carbon-14 testing to 75,000 years. No farther.

It is not hard to see why. At 63,070 years you've only got 453 billion C-14s left in your whole sample.

At 68,800 years, you're down to 226.6 billion C-14s left.

And at 74,530 years, you're down to 113.3 billion atoms, in a sample size of 5 septillion atoms, which is to say 1 part in 24 trillion. Our technology is not capable of reliably sorting that out.

You can see, then, why C-14 cannot possibly be used to date dinosaurs. The last dinosaurs are said to have gone extinct 65 million years ago.

Let's keep running our math.

At 80,260 years, there are 56.65 billion C-14s left in our sample.

At 85,990 years there are 28.325 billion C-14s left in our sample. We're already well below our threshold of detection, but they are there, at least theoretically. We cannot confirm this by direct observation, but we have to assume it is so.

At 91,720 years where are 14.16 billion atoms left.

At 97,450 years, 7.08 billion.

At 103,180 years, 3.54 billion.

Go back 57,300 more years, to 160,480 years, and you're down to 3.45 MILLION C-14s left. You're trying to find a single marked grain of sand on the California cost.

Go back another 57,300 years, and you have 3376 Carbon 14 atoms left in your sample.

Go back yet another 57,300 years, and there are 4 Carbon 14 atoms left. Four. How far back are we now? 275,080 years.

Go back 5730 more years, and there are 2 C-14 Atoms left. Another 5730 years, and there is 1 left. By 291,570 years back, there are no C-14 atoms left in the sample. Zero. Null.

Long before that point you passed any possibility of detection.

That is why I "keep saying" that radio-carbon dating cannot be used to date the dinosaurs.

There is NO Carbon 15 left from 65 million years ago. None. THEORETICALLY, in the whole world, there are a few atoms of it, maybe. To detect them would be like trying to find a aingle marked grain of sand randomly scattered on one of the world's beaches.

Did I need to go through all of that? Yes, I think I did. There is a pugnacious attitude around here about many things. Sometimes you have to brute force down to zero to demonstrate the point. I will now reiterate it explicitly:

ASSUMING that rates of radioactive decay are constant, and ASSUMING that the dinosaurs died out some 65 million years ago, it is categorically impossible to use C-14 to date dinosaur bones. 65 million year old Carbon 14 does not exist. At all. It has all decayed. Only theoretically is there some left. This is not provable, because it is impossible to design a machine that is so sensitive. In any case, Carbon-14 us COMPLETELY useless for dating dinosaurs. There is NO USE WHATSOEVER for C-14. It isn't simply "impracticable", it is impossible, full stop.

At 60 iterations, 343,800 years, the last C-14 atom in that 150 pound man's remains broke down. There is none left.

Coal is said to be ancient vegetation. Assuming that is true, there is a reason it is used as the inert background substrate for C-14 dating. There is no detectable Carbon-14 in it. This is not because our machines are not sensitive enough. It is because all of the C-14 has decayed. That's why it is completely useless for dating dinosaur bones.

And that's why I keep saying so: because it IS so. And also because the resistance here has been a little too fierce given the subject matter.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-06-08   11:31:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 39.

#40. To: Vicomte13 (#39)

Did I need to go through all of that? Yes, I think I did.

Nope.

And that's why I keep saying so: because it IS so.

But it is not true, no matter how many keystrokes you expend.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-06-08 13:28:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 39.

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