Carbon dating accuracy debate
The first excavations were performed prior to WWII, and supported the biblical chronology.When Kathleen Kenyon came away from her study in the 1950s and essentially announced ‘I see no evidence for the destruction of Joshua here,’ she was basing her opinions, in part, on the new field of radiocarbon dating.
One such is FYIIndeed, as can be found in several more articles here:
However, I will stand by my statement with this defense: First, we do not need changing decay rates to explain 14C dating.
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.
There are enough uncertainties in the physical history of earth to throw great uncertainty on the early dates.
A variable rate would only make the case worse for secular archaeology.
And uncalibrated dates are usually only off by less than 20%. (1952) Radiocarbon dating, University of Chicago Press.
But, lets be extremely conservative and say a 50,000 years old date is off by half. Kitagawa, H., and van der Plicht, J., (1998), Atmospheric radiocarbon calibration to 45,000 yr B.
As Einstein said "A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be." Every time you try to debunk a dating method by using a reference to the flood, I get the impression that you are looking for what you think should be, rather than what is.