Subject: RE:Carbon dating

From: Timothy John Finney <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 11:50:47 +0800 (WST)

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.

Best regards,

Tim Finney

[email-masked]
Baptist Theological College
and Murdoch University
Perth, W. Australia

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 09:04:52 -0700

On Sat, 24 Aug 1996, Timothy John Finney <[email-masked]> wrote:

Dear Curt,
>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
[email-masked]