Christopher Ramsey, the director of the Oxford Radiocarbon Laboratory, thinks more testing is needed. This is because there are significant scientific and non-religious reasons to doubt the validity of the tests.
Chemical analysis, all nicely peer-reviewed in scientific journals and subsequently confirmed by numerous chemists, shows that samples tested are chemically unlike the whole cloth.
It was probably a mixture of older threads and newer threads woven into the cloth as part of a medieval repair.
Recent robust statistical studies add weight to this theory.
CONTENTS: Scientists Speak about Radiocarbon Dating This material is excerpted from the book, DATING OF TIME IN EVOLUTION. Lee, "Radiocarbon: Ages in Error," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, September 1982, pp. But only the scientific community is told that fact.
"[b] Only three of the 15,000 reported ages are listed as `infinite.' "[c] Some samples of coal, oil, and natural gas, all supposedly many millions of years old have radiocarbon ages of less than 50,000 years.
Instead, the truncated protocols adopted led the carbon scientists over a cliff. Now that you are completely distracted from what John Klotz was saying, go read his blog posting, Ebola, Protocols and the Shroud of Turin.
blog, from a posting just yesterday entitled Ebola, Protocols and the Shroud of Turin. The Shroud of Turin may be the real burial cloth of Jesus.
They have their work cut out for them, however, because radiocarbon (C-14) dating is one of the most reliable of all the radiometric dating methods.
This article will answer several of the most common creationist attacks on carbon-14 dating, using the question-answer format that has proved so useful to lecturers and debaters. Answer: Cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere are constantly converting the isotope nitrogen-14 (N-14) into carbon-14 (C-14 or radiocarbon).