Originally Posted by
BeardoMSU
Lol...I'm not THE expert, but I am AN expert....but I'm flattered.
Let me try to understand your contention here....so you're saying that since C14 dating has only been around since '47, we don't have "data" on how the carbon 14 isotope behaves? And how that relationship matters in regard to organic material post-death? And how both are reflected via the ratio of C14 and C13 in the biosphere and atmosphere?
Because addressing all of this would require a fairly lengthly response....
Don't get me wrong...I'm happy to do it, but it does require some pretty essential understandings of organic chemistry, isotope decay, and what that means regarding the archaeological (and to some extents, the paleontological) record.
Of course human error is a part of this discussion; and an important one; and a ubiquitous one to scientific research. Published papers dealing with these topics are explicit in their methods, theory, rational for choice, etc. By "explicit", I mean they know it's of utmost importance to clarify how rigorously careful their sample-prep, analysis, data-extrapolation, etc. was throughout the whole process. As I mentioned before, chemical analysis, like C14, is expensive, so people want to get it right.
But, regarding the "example" experiments/studies you mentioned....I want to see these studies, their data, how they ran their experiments, Etc. I want to see it all. Because there is a lot of pseudo-science out there...and this arena is one of the main battlefields.... Agree.
Of course, man, and right back at ya.