Carbon dating flaws water Adult video chat site review thailand
The lecturer talked at length about how inaccurate C14 Dating is (as 'corrected' by dendrochronology).The methodology is quite accurate, but dendrochronology supposedly shows that the C14 dates go off because of changes in the equilibrium over time, and that the older the dates the larger the error.Example: wood found in a grave of known age by historically reliable documents is the standard for that time for the C14 content.This standard content of C14 can then be used for wood not associated with a historically documented date.Dates up to this point in history are well documented for C14 calibration.For object over 4,000 years old the method becomes very unreliable for the following reason: Objects older then 4,000 years run into a problem in that there are few if any known artifacts to be used as the standard.After all, this what the archeologist guessed in their published books.
To quote Immanuel Velikovsky, who painstakingly pieced together so much of the scientific evidence that clearly shows that cataclysmic events did occur in human history, and have left innumerable traces even today:“Bursts of cosmic rays and of electrical discharges on an interplanetary scale would make organic life surviving the catastrophes much richer in radiocarbon.” So any radiocarbon test would date these remains as being much younger than they actually are.
Radiocarbon dating was the brainchild of one Willard F.
Libby, who published his treatise on radiocarbon dating in 1952 - and clearly stated the limitations of radiocarbon Dating right up front, as honest scientists were once wont to do.
If you have any more questions about it don't hesitate to write.
(2.) I just listened to a series of lectures on archaeology put out by John Hopkins Univ.
We believe all the dates over 5,000 years are really compressible into the next 2,000 years back to creation.