Can carbon dating wrong
First, just because several things agree does not make what they agree upon correct or true (i.e., ‘correlation does not prove causation’).Second, while agreement on an outcome among several independent techniques is generally considered a good indication of a reasonably reliable outcome, all tree-ring chronologies are derived using the same basic assumptions, so they can hardly be considered to be independent determinations.Therefore, all claims of accurate clocks going back into the unobserved past must be met with scepticism.
Obviously I am questioning the conclusions of that study.C, dendrochronology, and uranium-thorium (U-Th) dating techniques are indeed trustworthy, as are the experts and labs that perform these tests.He asks, “What did CMI do to disillusion them, and who is fooling who? Responses from CMI’s Gavin Cox (and some from Robert Carter on corals) are interspersed: There are several tree-ring chronologies which are reported to agree with each other, and C14 dating of rings enables a calibration curve for C14 against age to be constructed to account for variation of C14 production from time to time due to altered solar activity or volcanism.Thus, the fact of their agreement is not necessarily a compelling argument for the correctness of the result.That being said, the Belfast data is a well-known example of a lengthy, (claimed) continuous tree ring chronology, from 5 – 2006, but this particular example (methodological assumptions aside) is obviously not a problem for the biblical time-scale.
Search for can carbon dating wrong:
He doubts that two different methods would produce the ‘same curve’ on a sample for the following reasons: C in the atmosphere is increasing over time.