Carbon dating circular reasoning
Dr Walt Brown explains, "…links are established based on the judgment of a tree-ring specialist. …Standard statistical techniques could establish how well the dozen supposedly overlapping tree-ring sequences fit. Robert Lee summed up the reasons behind the controversy over the Carbon dating method in his article "Radiocarbon, Ages in Error," published in the Anthropological Journal of Canada: "The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious.
However, tree ring specialists have refused to subject their judgments to these statistical tests and would not release their data so others can do these statistical tests" (Walt Brown, In the Beginning, 2001, p. This refusal to submit their work to close scrutiny raises a reasonable concern, especially in light of the apparent circular reasoning employed by the researchers. Despite 35 years of technical refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation.
If the ratio has fluctuated throughout the unobservable past (and we can be sure that it has), how can we determine what the ratio was during the lifetime of a specimen that lived and died before we first began measuring the ratio?
Advocates of the Carbon dating method have turned to "Dendrochronology" (a.k.a.
Lee, "Radiocarbon, Ages in Error," Anthropological Journal of Canada, Vol. This is how it works: scientists begin with a living tree or dead wood specimen which can be accurately dated by some reliable means.Then they look for pieces of dead wood which are older than the specimen which they started with and whose tree-ring patterns match up with and overlap those of the first specimen (tree-rings can vary greatly in width due to environmental factors and thus produce a pattern by which we can match specimens which grew in the same environment).When scientists fail to account for so many more plants and animals in the pre-Flood biosphere and wrongly assume that plants buried in coal beds had the same proportion of carbon-14 as plants do today, their radiocarbon dating yields “ages” much higher than the true Flood age of about 4,350 years.In today’s culture we have all been taught that things like carbon dating are “facts,” but they are merely interpretations of facts.
This is called a "long chronology." By dating the oldest piece of wood using the Carbon dating method and comparing the two dates, scientists can make the necessary adjustments to their calculations. Aardsma, "Myths Regarding Radiocarbon Dating," Impact, No.