Accurate radiocarbon dating

On this site alone there have been statements disputing the constancy of radioactive decay.One such is FYIIndeed, as can be found in several more articles here:

accurate radiocarbon dating-56

In the end, though, it seems to me there is little debate about the rate of decay in the historical era.

Most of the debate centers around Creation Week and the Flood, so I do not think my statement was made in error, at least in the context of what is being discussed.

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.

The first excavations were performed prior to WWII, and supported the biblical chronology.

When Kathleen Kenyon came away from her study in the 1950s and essentially announced ‘I see no evidence for the destruction of Joshua here,’ she was basing her opinions, in part, on the new field of radiocarbon dating.Examples: For all of these, and more, reasons, calibration is needed in C-14 dating.Thus, reports generally specify the ‘raw’ numbers and the ‘fudged’ numbers.A variable rate would only make the case worse for secular archaeology.Second, while we have discovered in recent years that certain radiometric decay rates do vary, the measured effect is slight, so far.However, I will stand by my statement with this defense: First, we do not need changing decay rates to explain 14C dating.

Tags: , ,