Faulty radiometric dating
Faulty radiometric dating - Uk webcam sluts xxx
We believe all the dates over 5,000 years are really compressible into the next 2,000 years back to creation.So when you hear of a date of 30,000 years for a carbon date we believe it to be early after creation and only about 7,000 years old.
Once they did that they developed the overall sequence.
One of the impressive points Whitewall makes is the conspicuous absence of dates between 4,500 and 5,000 years ago illustrating a great catastrophe killing off plant and animal life world wide (the flood of Noah)!
I hope this helps your understanding of carbon dating.
In fact, 14C is forming FASTER than the observed decay rate.
This skews the 'real' answer to a much younger age.
After all, this what the archeologist guessed in their published books.
Some believe trees are known to be as old as 9,000 years. A lot of people doubt this claim for various good reasons I wont go into here.
(They conveniently forget to mention that the tree ring chronology was arranged by C14 dating.
The scientists who were trying to build the chronology found the tree rings so ambiguous that they could not decide which rings matched which (using the bristlecone pine).
If you have any more questions about it don't hesitate to write.
(2.) I just listened to a series of lectures on archaeology put out by John Hopkins Univ.
The lecturer talked at length about how inaccurate C14 Dating is (as 'corrected' by dendrochronology).