Radiocarbon dating totaly inaccurate before 2000 BCE

by opusdei1972 17 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Finkelstein

  That conflicts with what the Bible says.

  Well Duh

  The bible and its containing words were written 2 to 3 thousand years ago when the people of that era didn't have the knowledge we have now.

  .

  There are many more sciences that have calculated the earth's age without using Radio Carbon dating.

  Of course the WTS heads are going to reject anything that modern day science has shown or proven for the reason that information nullifies their own

  teachings of the earths age or mankind.

  Why present information that could potentially alleviate the your own power and control over people.

  .

  If human ignorance procures power and wealth why make an effort to ruin what has been acquired ?
• 

  opusdei1972

  sunny23 , Coded Logic : I am noticing that there are many webpages misleading people with this stuff of young earth arguments. Indeed, though the Society denies a young earth, the governing body defends the 6000 years argument, which is currently untenable. I think that schools need to be taught about these issues,...may be it happens in US, but in third world countries any myth is acepted.

  Slidin Fast : you found an interesting fact, How could an Adventist university be unbiased in these issues?
• 

  Apognophos

  in The Biblical Archaeologist (1955, p. 46): “It may be noted that the new Carbon 14 method of dating ancient remains has not turned out to be as free from error as had been hoped..."

  Haha, they quoted someone from so long ago that carbon-14 dating was "new". Yeah, that's a useful quote for talking about modern dating accuracy (in their defense, the Insight books are old too).

  The WT referencing support from carbon-14 dating, however, is not contradictory because the WT's (and other creationists') assertion is that carbon dating becomes inaccurate pre-Flood. They are using it for support of post-Flood dates but not pre-Flood.

  What's so convenient is that it's the stories close to the time the OT places the Flood which are clearly 100% made up (people living hundreds of years pre-Flood, a Jew basically being handed the keys to Egypt a few hundred years after the Flood, etc.). Eventually they do get into real history closer to the time the Bible's texts were written (like the accurate points in the Hezekiah account), and by then, suddenly dating is reliable and can support the Bible.
• 

  opusdei1972

  The Watchtower said:

  Bible chronology has a unique superiority over scientific chronologies. It goes into the future. The radiocarbon clock runs down, ever slower and slower, but without any end point. The tree-ring chronology stops with last year’s growth. But the Bible chronology directs our attention to a definite point, still future—the end of six 1,000-year days of man’s history, as counted by his Creator.
  The Bible’s past record of forecasting future dates is impressive. Biblical chronology was published by Jehovah’s Christian witnesses’ foretelling 1914 as the date for the tremendous change in earth’s affairs that then took place. Said the New York World on August 30, 1914: “The terrific war outbreak in Europe has fulfilled an extraordinary prophecy. For a quarter of a century past, through preachers and through press, the ‘International Bible Students’ . . . have been proclaiming to the world that the Day of Wrath prophesied in the Bible would dawn in 1914. ‘Look out for 1914!’ has been the cry of the . . . evangelists.” (*** g72 4/8 pp. 16-20 Scientific or Bible Chronology—Which Merits Your Faith? ***)

  However, recent recalibrations do not alter significantly the dates for human bones found older than 40000 years ago.

  The recalibrated clock won’t force archaeologists to abandon old measurements wholesale, says Bronk Ramsey, but it could help to narrow the window of key events in human history. “If you’re trying to look at archaeological sites at the order of 30,000 or 40,000 years ago, the ages may shift by only a few hundred years but that may be significant in putting them before or after changes in climate,” he says. ("Carbon Dating Gets a Reset", Scientific American, Oct 18, 2012; By Ewen Callaway and Nature magazine )

  So, updated calibrations of radiocarbon dating still prove that the Genesis account is a myth. There were modern men more than 40000 years before "Adam".
• 

  hamsterbait

  The simple minded WT article shows they DO NOT understand how C14 dating works. As long as a creature is alive it makes no difference if it absorbed ten tons of C14 or just a fraction of a gram. After death it decays and it is the RATIO ofC14 to decay products that establishes age. It does not "run down ever slower" as they say.

  Their favourite source of science is the World Book Encyclopedia, a book for young children. It's explanation of C14 dating is seriously flawed and cannot help but make an ignorant fool writing for the cult misunderstand. I no longer have a copy, but I am sure the relevant quote can be found.
• 

  nonjwspouse

  I remember once when my husband was asserting this 6000 year "fact" and I asked "what about carbon dating, don't you believe in that"? He was silenced, and walked away with a strange look on his face. That was years ago.

  So %&*% frustrating.
• 

  GLTirebiter

  he concludes that radioactive carbon atoms did not exist in the earth's atmosphere in significant amounts before 2000 B.C.E.

  The concentration in old material (determined by tree tring dating, for example) offers a strong counterexample to this claim.

  Perhaps they want to link this claim with a theory that there was no atmospheric C14 until Jah nuked Sodom and Gomorrah!
• 

  opusdei1972

  As I shown above, the Watchtower quoted the Physicist R. H. Brown, who seems or seemed to be an Adventist against radiocarbon dates against the Bible chronology. However, R. E. Taylor, who worked in the Radiocarbon Laboratory of the University of California, answered one of his articles:

  A reader familiar with the general 14 C literature but not aware of Dr. Brown's philosophical or theological orientation would certainly have been puzzled by the tenor of the first four paragraphs of his discussion. However, any confusion would probably be resolved when one reads the first sentence in the next paragraph. Dr. Brown states that he is writing these comments for those "individuals who are looking for models that relate the historical data in the Bible and modern scientific observations." According to Dr. Brown, these individuals believe that Genesis 6-8 "describe a universal catastrophe that reasonably may be expected to have produced most of the coal and shell fossil material...." According to Dr. Brown, that "universal catastrophe" occurred "within the range 2500-3500 BC." That this view totally and completely contradicts well-established conclusions of a whole range of scientific disciplines — not to mention historical and archaeological data — apparently does not disturb Dr. Brown. It is my understanding that the majority of theologians holding academic credentials in the study of Hebrew language and literature in his own denomination views the Genesis creation narratives as theological rather than historical statements. I would therefore submit that the appropriate place to look for models that explain the apparent discrepancy that Dr. Brown sees between the scientifically well-established conclusion that organic life on earth is millions of years old and his interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis is not to be found in the scientific literature.

  http://www.grisda.org/origins/16008.htm#Brown