Geology Intelligent Design

New radiocarbon dating may shift historical ages

Spread the love

Expect more dating controversies in archaeology, some of which impinge on events that people care about:

For the first time in seven years, the technique is due to be recalibrated using a slew of new data from around the world. The result could have implications for the estimated ages of many finds — such as Siberia’s oldest modern human fossils, which according to the latest calibrations are 1,000 years younger than previously thought.

The work combines thousands of data points from tree rings, lake and ocean sediments, corals and stalagmites, among other features, and extends the time frame for radiocarbon dating back to 55,000 years ago — 5,000 years further than the last calibration update in 2013.

Nicola Jones, “Carbon dating, the archaeological workhorse, is getting a major reboot” at Nature

We are talking about time periods that begin to verge on history, not paleontology. The article gives the Minoan earthquake (roughly 1600 BC) as an example.

3 Replies to “New radiocarbon dating may shift historical ages

  1. 1
    aarceng says:

    It will still be only as good as the data. If you pull a tree out of a bog you might get a statistical match with another tree that grew in a different location and under different conditions, but it might well be a false positive.
    The tree ring record for Bristlecone Pines was extended back by assuming that wood lying on the ground was even older that the living tree; a highly dubious assumption.

  2. 2
    Pearlman says:

    radio-metric carbon dating only fully adds up with, and is internally consistent with, YeC creation science. deeper-time models keep needing revision as not right to begin with and rely on circular reasoning, cherry picking and other mock science. reference the YeC Moshe Emes series for Torah and science alignment. So ID within YeC own’s the mantle of science.

  3. 3
    AaronS1978 says:

    This is very interesting and it’s good to see

Leave a Reply