Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site 3comvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm
From: michaelm@3comvax.UUCP (Michael McNeil)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Radiocarbon errors
Message-ID: <180@3comvax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 28-Aug-85 04:21:46 EDT
Article-I.D.: 3comvax.180
Posted: Wed Aug 28 04:21:46 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 30-Aug-85 10:57:39 EDT
References: <14600041@hpfcrs.UUCP>
Organization: 3Com Corp; Mountain View, CA
Lines: 83

> >... indicating that earlier than about 0 BC, carbon dates tend to be *too
> >young* (as I said earlier).  In fact, a true date of 5,000 BC corresponds
> >...
> 
> ... of charcoal indicated a date of 2620-2630 BC for an ancient structure at
> Durrington Walls in England.  However, absolutely compelling archaeological
> evidences called for a date approximately 1000 years later.  Another
> archaeologist, Professor V. Milojcic, states that some radio carbon dates
> from south-eastern Europe are 1000 years too high ...
> 
>      Unless Carbon-14 dating techniques have changes dramatically since 1959
> I would be inclined to be skeptical about any carbon-14 dates!  The fact that
> it can be 1000 years off for something as recent as 1600 BC suggests to me
> that Carbon-14 dating is worthless, and any scientist who uses it cannot
> be taken seriously.  If I'm not mistaken, it is rarely used anymore.
> 
>      However, the interesting thing is that many people are still clinging
> tightly to the data gathered back in the days when Carbon-14 dating was in
> vogue -- worthless data!          

Well, Carbon-14 dating *has* changed dramatically since 1959!  I never
cease to be amazed at how old data and theories are tossed around as
the latest scientific word in this group.  (One recent article referred
to a scientific paper from *1907* for its anti-evolutionist arguments!)  

Sorry to have to clue you in like this, but science is *not* a subject
based on ``truths'' revealed far in the past, to be unquestioned ever
after.  Science is a process of continual change and growth.  Always
there is error, but steadily the weight of evidence reveals errors,
and these are weeded out in an evolutionary process of its own.  

Carbon-14 dating in its early days did incorporate an error, which
caused many datings to be off by values such as has been described.  
This was due to the over-simplistic assumption that Carbon-14 was
created in the upper atmosphere (by cosmic rays) at a constant rate
over the last few tens of thousands of years (I yawn at any flames
that all but the last of these didn't exist).  

This mistaken assumption was recognized due to the archeological
inconsistencies.  The dating errors were made precise as a result
of the advance in tree ring dating techniques which has occurred
in the last couple of decades.  Tree ring studies have allowed
Carbon-14 dating to be recalibrated on the basis of exactly what
the Carbon-14 deposition rate was during each temporal period.  

For those who are not familiar with the science of tree ring
dating, every tree records a unique record of the climatic changes
that have occurred during its lifetime.  The width of each ring
tells how well the tree did that year, and that in turn reflects
the water, sunlight, and weather that it experienced.  Year after
year the rings record the climate, the changes in which form a
pattern in the tree rings as unique as a fingerprint.  

The tree ring scientists started with living trees, and charted
the story of the climatic changes that they told.  Then, using
wood from trees no longer living but whose ages were generally
known, climatic ``fingerprints'' were located which matched
those on living trees.  Matching patterns proved that these
trees were alive when living trees were alive.  Their rings,
however, often extended even further in the past than those
of any trees now living, and from them the chart of climate
``fingerprints'' could be extended further back.  Ever older
wood samples were cross-correlated with the climatic record,
and the climatic record extended ever further into the past.  

By this technique, not only have the climatic changes for many
thousands of years been mapped, but the Carbon-14 technique has
been calibrated and made precise.  Far from being ``worthless,''
Carbon-14 dating is more useful and powerful than ever.  

Many contributing to this group seem to think that Carbon-14 and
other scientific dating techniques are accepted blindly.  This
is not so.  Every dating method is carefully checked wherever
and whenever possible against dates derived by other techniques.  
Only when a dating technique stands the test of time, and data
from different methods reinforces rather than conflicts with it,
is it generally accepted.  However, when a useful method *is*
found to be flawed, it usually isn't just tossed away -- instead,
if possible the problem is fixed!  

Michael McNeil
3Com Corporation
..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm