Carbon dating myth korean women dating culture
Actually, the later established figure, known as the "Cambridge half-life", is 5730 40 years, whereas the initial figure established by Libby et al. (What is curious are the conclusions that Scott reaches in his article.
Having dutifully explained how C-14 is primarily created (i.e.
In fact, he spends the first four paragraphs giving a basic, but roughly correct, description of what C-14 is and what C-14 dating is based upon.solar/cosmic neutrons striking nitrogen in the atmosphere thus converting it to C-14), he then manages to arrive at the odd assumption that carbon dating agrees with the YEC timescale of the Earth being only some 6,000 10,000 years old.Please note this is less than two half-lives of C-14, which will become important as we delve further into Scott's article.Forty years ago, the advent of calibration signaled the death knell of the diffusionism that had been the mainstay of archaeological thought for a century.
Since then, the revolution has continued, as the extent of calibration has been extended ever further back and as the range of material that can be dated has been expanded.However, even a small amount of research into the subject shows that he put little effort into checking anything in his article. Since scientists know the amount of C-14 that the animal had to start with (based on the assumption that the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant) and they know that a half-life is about 5, 600 years, they can work out how old the animal is.On a very basic level, this is correct, but Scott ignores correction factors.We should also note Scott's caveat that this supposed concordance is only apparent via interpretation "within a Biblical framework which includes a global flood ...".