"Yes, I do know that. That problem was identified by de Vries (1958). His work led to the calibration curves we use today."
Levels of C-14 can be greatly effected by any condition.
quote:
"1. The theory assumes that carbon-14 is in equilibrium in the atmosphere -- that it is being broken down at the same rate at which it is being produced. However, calculations made to test this assumption suggest that carbon-14 is being produced nearly one third faster than it is disintegrating. If this is true, then none of the fossils that have been dated by this method could be more than a few thousand years old..."
2. ... It is also true that cosmic rays would have been deflected away from the earth most effectively by the earth's magnetic field if, as we have argued, this was much stronger in the past. With fewer cosmic rays reaching the atmosphere, there would have been less production of carbon-14 then than now."
Bone of Contention: Is Evolution True (Sylvia Baker, 1986)
You are making a fundamental mistake here. The research by de Vries (1958) showed the need for calibration curves. Those curves account for the variations in the earth's magnetic field and differing levels of cosmic rays. This makes your point (2) moot.
Your point (1) is something that I would like to see evidence for. I suspect it is typical creationist nonsense. (And you don't date fossils with Carbon 14 dating anyway).
quote:
"roughly half of the dates produced by this method are rejected by archeologists as being either too far off or impossible."
"Radiocarbon: Ages in Error" (Robert E. Lee) Anthropological Journal of Canada Vol. 19, #3, 1981
I have this publication, and have emailed Robert E. Lee on this quotation. It was referring to a specific section of Canada and to local conditions. The problems have since been identified and worked out.
Sorry, creationists. This does not support your efforts to discredit the Carbon 14 method.
The Carbon 'timescale' was only known for about 16,000 years. This means, that after that period, data was extrapolated. But recent discoveries in the polar ice cores tell us that the data is not accurate:
quote:
"Marking time with carbon 14 requires an accurate record of atmospheric radiocarbon through time. Archaeologists, for example, use the radiocarbon time scale to date artifacts, but dates were only accurate as far back as 16,000 years. The information contained in the stalagmite effectively triples the calibration period.
University of Arizona physicist J. Warren Beck and his colleagues also discovered that atmospheric carbon 14 levels soared dramatically between 45,000 and 33,000 years ago. Beck says even more interesting was a dramatic spike in radiocarbon levels during a millennium that began 44,300 years ago, nearly twice as high as the "bomb pulse" produced during nuclear weapons testing in the 1950s and 60s.
Agen338 : Olympus Situs Judi Slot Online Gacor Hari Ini Di Indonesia
That's why we use a calibration curve! It allows us to account for these fluctuations and produce accurate dates.
And speaking of the magnetic field, at a decay rate of 5% every 100 years, 10,000 years ago the earth's magnetic field would have been 128 times as strong as it is today. Evolutionists claim the last pole reversal was around 750,000 years ago (which is obviously untrue). But the earth would have been too hot at 10,000.
Off topic nonsense. Since this is off topic I will rebut with a link:
rebuttal.
quote:
"A decade ago, Prvot and Coe (and colleagues) reported in three papers the evidence they had found of extremely rapid changes of the Earth’s magnetic field recorded in lava flows at Steens Mountain in southern Oregon (USA).3,4,5 Scientists regard Steens Mountain as the best record of a magnetic reversal because the volcano spewed out 56 separate flows during that episode, each of these rock layers providing time-lapse snapshots of the reversal. Within one particular flow, Prvot and Coe discovered that rock toward the top showed a different magnetic orientation than did rock lower down. They interpreted this to mean that the field shifted about 3 a day during the few days it took the single layer to cool.6 Such a rate of change is about 500 times faster than that seen in direct measurements of the field today, so,
most geomagnetists dismissed the claim by applying the principle of least astonishment‘it was easier to believe that these lava flows did not accurately record the changes in the earth’s magnetic field than to believe that there was something fundamentally wrong with the conventional wisdom of the day’"
Journal of Creation, August 1995
This is all old data. What's the latest finding on this?
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
™ Version 4.2
(1)