Sat Aug 24 23:31:33 1996

From owner-tc-list  Sat Aug 24 23:31:33 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id XAA13364; Sat, 24 Aug 1996 23:30:18 -0400
From: REElliott@aol.com
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 23:26:50 -0400
Message-ID: <960824232649_187058236@emout14.mail.aol.com>
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Carbon dating
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1489

In a message dated 96-08-24 10:22:35 EDT, you write:

<< 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.... >>

For myself, coming from a medical (clinician) background, I have to agree
with Robert's objections to this test in the textual critical arena.

I ask two basic questions concerning C-14 dating:
1. As for the testing procedure itself, where is a "control"?
2. From a mathematical standpoint (and I'm no genius here) how does one solve
an equation that has more than one variable, such as the one behind this
method?

If I'm wrong concerning the second question, please reply and show formulae.

Rich E. Elliott
RE Elliott@aol.com

Back