Scientific controversy concerning carbon 14 dating
The level of atmospheric C is not constant due to human activity, in part because of human combustion of fossil fuels and in part because of above-ground testing of the largely defensive weapon of the thermonuclear bomb.Therefore dates must be calibrated based on Radiometric dating in general, of course, poses a huge problem for people who believe that the universe is 6000-odd years old.by Helen Fryman Question: What about radiocarbon dating? Response: I asked several people who know about this field. (1.) C14 dating is very accurate for wood used up to about 4,000 years ago.This is only because it is well calibrated with objects of known age.Libby, the discoverer of the C14 dating method, was very disappointed with this problem.He understood that archaeological artifacts were readily available. von Fange, "Time Upside Down," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1974, p. "Although it was hailed as the answer to the prehistorian's prayer when it was first announced, there has been increasing disillusion with the [radiocarbon] method because of the chronological uncertainties—in some cases absurdities—that would follow a strict adherence to published C-14 dates . What bids to become a classic example of `C-14 irresponsibility' is the 6,000 year spread of 11 determinations for Jarmo, a prehistoric village in northeastern Iraq which, on the basis of all archeological evidence, was not occupied for more than 500 consecutive years."—*C. Reed, "Animal Domestication in the Prehistoric Near East," in Science, 130 (1959), p. "A survey of the 15,000 radiocarbon dates published through the year 1969 in the publication, Radiocarbon, revealed the following significant facts: "[a] Of the dates of 9,671 specimens of trees, animals, and man, only 1,146 or about 12 percent have radiocarbon ages greater than 12,530 years.
"[b] Only three of the 15,000 reported ages are listed as `infinite.' "[c] Some samples of coal, oil, and natural gas, all supposedly many millions of years old have radiocarbon ages of less than 50,000 years.
After all, this what the archeologist guessed in their published books.
Some believe trees are known to be as old as 9,000 years. A lot of people doubt this claim for various good reasons I wont go into here.
These include the starting conditions, the constancy of the rate of decay, and that no material has left or entered the sample.
Furthermore, if a sample has been contaminated, scientists will know about it.