Radiocarbon dating totaly inaccurate before 2000 BCE

by opusdei1972 17 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • opusdei1972

    It seems that this portion was published in the Watchtower in the year 1977 (as I have in the Spanish version):

    The radiocarbon dating method has been widely accepted by many scientists as showing that humans lived back to at least 50,000 B.C.E. That conflicts with what the Bible says.
    But physicist R. Brown of Andrews University claims that this radiocarbon dating method is highly inaccurate. After a ten-year study, he concludes that radioactive carbon atoms did not exist in the earth's atmosphere in significant amounts before 2000 B.C.E. and so cannot be used to date objects before then. Sometime around that date, he says, a major atmospheric change likely occurred, resulting in the buildup of radioactive carbon in the atmosphere.
    One such vast change was the flood of Noah's day, which the Bible indicates to have taken place in 2370 B.C.E. That catastrophe without a doubt drastically altered atmospheric conditions.—Gen. 7:11, 12

    I don't know who is R. Brown, but I would like to find his "ten-year study". Do you know about an article comenting about it? As far as I know radiocarbon dating measurements have not reported such a drastically alteration of atmospheric conditions around 2000 BCE. The measurements does not report such a gap. So, we have two options, most scientists working in radiocarbon dating are liars and stupids, or this guy R. Brown was dead wrong.

    Any thoughts?

  • opusdei1972

    This article is very insteresting:

    And the following pages prove that recent and bettering radiocarbon dates for some neanderdals are even older:

    The 6000 year belief has no fundation!!!!

  • Crazyguy

    Lol they think the flood took place around 2300bce, oh my god how stupid is that. There was so much man made civilization in 2300bce that's still undisturbed today except for the changes of just time.

  • jgnat

    I take it you are referring to this Robert H. Brown (Ret.)

    Background on Radiocarbon Dating that I trust:

  • Slidin Fast
    Slidin Fast

    A quick visit to Andrews University website reveals all.

    Yep, another neutral, un-biased source to prove the point, the Seventh Day Adventist University. How many levels is this wrong on?

  • Daniel1555

    Until about 12000 years before christ radiocarbondating is very accurate as it is calibrated by dendrochronology. Dendrochronology and cores from glaciers and certain lakes show in detail how the atmosphere was tens of thousands of years ago.

  • Coded Logic
    Coded Logic

    Radiocarbon dating is a tool used for dating plants, plant eating animals, and preditors that eat plant eating animals. Everytime I read that "radiocarbon dating has been proven wrong" its always something completely rediculous - like some creationist saying a diamond was dated as being only 60 thousand years old. Obviously you can't carbon date a diamond as they don't absorb C14 from the atmosphere. It would be like saying hammers have been "proven wrong" because you can't boil water with them. Obviously hammers are a tool used for driving nails not for boiling water. Likewise, radiocarbon dating is for dating plants and animals not for dating rocks.

    But to come to the point of your OP, the simple fact is dendrochronology (using tree rings to date trees) has verfied the accuracy of radiocarbon dating up to 40,000 years. And scientest often use multiple dating methods to veryify the age of things. When they need to date something older (or something inorganic - like a fossil or rock), they have other tools they can use. There are several other dating methods including:

    Obsidian Hydration

    Paleomagnetic / Archaeomagnetic

    Amino Acid Racemization

    Fission Track

    Oxdisable Carbon Ratio

    Electron Spin Resonance

    Cosmic Ray Exposure


    Cation Ratios


    And the other kinds of Radiometric dating:

    Potassium to Argon

    Rhenium to Osmium

    Lutetium to Hafnium

    Samarium to Neodymium

    Rubidium to Strontium

  • sunny23

    It's laughable how they try and criticize scientific method to hold onto ancient man-written scripts.

    This is from the Insight book:

    "Differences in dating. It is important to realize this when considering the dates offered by archaeologists with regard to their finds. Illustrating this, Merrill F. Unger says: “For example, Garstang dates the fall of Jericho c. 1400 B.C. . . . ; Albright subscribes to the date c. 1290 B.C. . . . ; Hugues Vincent, the celebrated Palestinian archeologist, holds to the date 1250 B.C. . . . ; while H. H. Rowley views Rameses II as the Pharaoh of the Oppression, and the Exodus as having taken place under his successor Marniptah [Merneptah] about 1225 B.C.” (Archaeology and the Old Testament, p. 164, ftn. 15) While arguing on behalf of the reliability of modern archaeological process and analysis, Professor Albright acknowledges that “it is still very difficult for the non-specialist to pick his way among the conflicting dates and conclusions of archaeologists.”—The Archaeology of Palestine, p. 253.

    It is true that the radiocarbon clock has been employed, along with other modern methods, for dating the artifacts found. However, that this method is not completely accurate is evidenced in the following statement by G. Ernest Wright in TheBiblicalArchaeologist (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. . . . Certain runs have produced obviously wrong results, probably for a number of reasons. At the moment, one can depend upon the results without question only when several runs have been made which give virtually identical results and when the date seemscorrectfromothermethodsofcomputation [italics ours].” More recently, TheNewEncyclopædiaBritannica (Macropædia, 1976, Vol. 5, p. 508) stated: “Whatever the cause, . . . it is clear that carbon -14 dates lack the accuracy that traditional historians would like to have.”—See CHRONOLOGY (Archaeological Dating )."

    However when it comes to confirming beliefs and dates the WTorg is quick to use carbon dating when it backs them up! From watchtower 09 5/1 p27:

    "Did King Hezekiah really build a tunnel into Jerusalem?

    Dr. Amos Frumkin of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem says: “The carbon -14 tests we carried out on organic material within the plaster of the Siloam Tunnel, and uranium-thorium dating of stalactites found in the tunnel, date it conclusively to Hezekiah’s era.” An article in the scientific journal Nature adds: “The three independent lines of evidence—radiometric dating , palaeography and the historical record—all converge on about 700 BC, rendering the Siloam Tunnel the best-dated Iron-Age biblical structure thus far known.”

    ALSO: from Awake 08 2/8 p19-22

    Dating the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah

    The first Dead Sea Scroll of the Bible book of Isaiah, discovered in 1947, was written on leather in a pre-Masoretic Hebrew script. It has been dated to the end of the second century B.C.E. How did scholars arrive at that date? They compared the writing with other Hebrew texts and inscriptions and assigned it a paleographic date between 125 B.C.E. and 100 B.C.E. Carbon -14 dating of the scroll provided additional evidence.

  • opusdei1972

    Thank you jgnat, your finding led me to the following article online of Brown:

    I will analyze it.

  • St George of England

Share this