Carbon dating com
I understand calibration might have something to do with this, but then in the article it says in italicized words that the uncalibrated date “Must Always Be Mentioned”. CMI’s Dr Rob Carter responds: Anthony, As a fan of biblical archaeology, I was asked to address your question.But when I read articles about the results, they never mention the uncalibrated data, which could actually be correct. I am not an expert in every subject that impinges on the discussion, but I will do my best.Scientists at Brookhaven National Laboratory and the Physikalish-Technische-Bundesandstalt in Germany have reported "unexplained periodic fluctuations in the [nuclear] decay rates of Si-32 and Ra-226...strongly correlated in time, not only with each other, but also with the distance between the Earth and the Sun." It is likely that similar discrepancies and fluctuations occur with other nuclear decay rates, such as that of Many people believe that carbon dating has proved that the Earth is millions or billions of years old, much older than the biblically derived date of around 6,000 years.
Radiocarbon, or carbon 14, is an isotope of the element carbon that is unstable and weakly radioactive. Carbon 14 is continually being formed in the upper atmosphere by the effect of cosmic ray neutrons on nitrogen 14 atoms.
C must be younger than 50,000 to 100,000 years, assuming that adequate precautions have been taken to eliminate contamination.
Carbon dating, like other radiometric dating methods, requires certain assumptions that cannot be scientifically proved.
This does not mean that recalibration is bad, indeed it is necessary, but it should make one more soberly assess any reported dates as being tentative.
The problem is that most people reporting on these issues fail to report the initial number along with the calibrated date. The Jericho controversy is soundly rooted in C-14 calibration.