Has radiometric dating ever been wrong Arab skype video tube
I understand calibration might have something to do with this, but then in the article it says in italicized words that the uncalibrated date “Must Always Be Mentioned”. CMI’s Dr Rob Carter responds: Anthony, As a fan of biblical archaeology, I was asked to address your question.But when I read articles about the results, they never mention the uncalibrated data, which could actually be correct. I am not an expert in every subject that impinges on the discussion, but I will do my best.
I read the scientific article on the carbon dating done on the Jericho site written by Bruins and Van Der Plicht.
When I did the math from their results section of the YBP, they all turned out to be right around the year 1400 .
Nevertheless Richard Leakey continued to fight for this original date. One gave an age of 1.6 million years and the other, where skull 1470 was found, gave 1.82 million years—both considerably younger than the five previous studies had reported.
If skull 1470 was 2.9 million years old, he had discovered the oldest member of the genus ; if it wasn’t, he hadn’t! All of the above-cited articles spoke of the great difficulty in getting rock or crystal samples that were not altered, weathered, or derived from older rock.
Mr Miller told Ancient Origins that it is always desirable to carbon-14 date several fractions to minimize the possibility of errors which Miller requested and that essential concordance was achieved in the 1000's of years as with all bone fractions of ten other dinosaurs.