Sat Aug 24 10:20:51 1996

From owner-tc-list  Sat Aug 24 10:20:51 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id KAA11721; Sat, 24 Aug 1996 10:19:55 -0400
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: 
 
References: <37896.larry.niccum.2@nd.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 09:04:52 -0700
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" 
Subject: RE:Carbon dating
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1271

On Sat, 24 Aug 1996, Timothy John Finney  wrote:

Dear Curt,
>
>Thanks for your reply: thoughtful and true. But it would still be good to
>get a few more handles on the papyri in general. There is potential for
>error through circular reasoning in palaeographical papyrus dating which
>a physical test could see through.

I have to add a comment here. It's my opinion that carbon dating can't
help us much. Even under ideal conditions, Carbon-14 dating has a margin
of error of about a century. That's enough to prove, for instance, that
the Shroud of Turin is late -- but it's not good enough to prove, for
instance, the date of p52.

Another point: I don't know how many of you know how carbon-14 dating
works, but it's based on the rate at which radioactive carbon 14
breaks down. And, very disturbingly, it *doesn't work according to
the theory.* That is, when one carbon dates something, the ratios
of isotopes produce a theoretical date. Then the researcher *adjusts
the date* to make up for the fact that, when objects of known date
have been studied, the results don't match the theory.

It really makes me worry about depending too much on C-14 dating.
There's something wrong with the system....

Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com

Back