Have there been any other cases of false carbon dating?

Reiner Protsch von Zieten was an anthropologist and carbon dating specialist at the University of Frankfurt.





Protsch made serious mistakes in carbon dating. He dated the skull fragment of the ';Hahnhöfersand Man';, a supposed Neanderthal skull, as 36,300 years old when further investigation proved it was only 7500 years old.





Another fossil, of the ';Binschof-Speyer Woman';, which was supposedly 21,300 years old, was actually only 3090 years old. ';Paderborn-Sande Man';, supposedly 27,400 years old, was from the 1700s.





The University of Frankfurt suspended Reiner Protsch on April 2004. On February 18, 2005 the university forced him to retire because of “falsehoods and manipulations.” The university also stated that he was guilty of plagiarism and had sold university property to collectors.





Terberger is quoted saying that ';Anthropology is going to have to completely revise its picture of modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 years ago. Prof Protsch's work appeared to prove that anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals had co-existed, and perhaps even had children together. This now appears to be rubbish.';





WikipediaHave there been any other cases of false carbon dating?
Several. The actual rate of decay for isotopes has been shown to be vacilating invalidating any radiometric dating.





http://www.astroengine.com/?p=1189


http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/…Have there been any other cases of false carbon dating?
Typical creationist dishonesty on both of your parts.

Report Abuse

I don't think anyone has ever claimed neanderthals and early humans had children together. That would violate the definition of ';species.';





I don't see how pointing out the flawed works of some scientist I've never heard of changes the fact that the level of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is constant due to energy from the sun and that all living things are in carbon exchange with the atmosphere
Wikipedia. How reliable.
If correct as you quoted, those aren't cases of false carbon dating -- they're cases of fraud.


And gee, how about that, other scientists using evidence and reason discovered the fraud, exposed it, and punished the offender.





You should probably learn at least one thing: no single result or example in science is ever considered reliable. Unless the results are replicated and verified by other objective and independent scientists, results aren't accepted as verified or genuine. So one guy being fraudulent might be able to stir up some excitement or sidetrack some others, but one guy being fraudulent can't derail an entire field with hundreds of thousands of independent scientists honestly working in it.





If ';creationism'; self-policed lies and fraud as well as science does, there would be no ';creationist'; web sites, books, or literature anywhere in the world. That there is NO verification or efforts to weed out frauds in ';creationism'; speaks volumes about its unreliability.





Peace.
@One Brave Mouse: ';The actual rate of decay for isotopes has been shown to be vacilating invalidating any radiometric dating.';





As a typical creationist, you grossly misrepresent the facts.





First, the research discussed in the links you presented referred to only certain isotopes, none of which are used for dating purposes. Those isotopes supposedly had their decay influenced by the earth's orbit around the sun.





Second, the vacillation, if it is a real effect, is uniformly cyclical and is very small--less than one percent. Even if the effect influenced the radioactive materials that are actually used for dating, because the variation is cyclical and small, the average in the variation would still work out quite well for dating purposes.





The Science News article you provided a link to also had another study that refutes your wholesale misrepresentation of radioactive decay.





Peter Cooper of the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Ill., obtained and analyzed data from the Cassini mission probe to Saturn. This probe generates power from the heat emitted by plutonium-238 for the Cassini spacecraft. Cassini journeyed as close to the sun as Venus and then far back to Saturn, spanning a much wider range of distances from the sun than Earth does during its yearly orbit. Because of that, if the sun had an effect on plutonium decay, the fluctuations would have been much more substantial than those seen in Earth-bound experiments. There were no such fluctuations.





But of course, that wouldn't support your creationist misrepresentations, so you ignored it.





Also, nuclear power reactors and atomic bombs are designed with a precise knowledge of the decay rates in the materials used. If those rates were off by even a small percentage, they wouldn't work as they do.