There are two reasons uncalibrated dates must be mentioned: 1) this prevents people from making up any number they please, and 2) it is for the sake of posterity, where future scientists can check the results and apply new ideas of calibration. Radiocarbon dates are affected by many outside factors. How certain are you that carbon dating is reliably able to give us dates back to 50KYA?
This does not mean that recalibration is bad, indeed it is necessary, but it should make one more soberly assess any reported dates as being tentative. Note the clear references to a "plateau in the calibration curve" from 2500 to 2900BC, which would be due to the flood.
The problem is that most people reporting on these issues fail to report the initial number along with the calibrated date. The Jericho controversy is soundly rooted in C-14 calibration. C14 was originally calibrated using Egyptian artifacts of "known" age on the "standard" chronology.
The first excavations were performed prior to WWII, and supported the biblical chronology. If that chronology is wrong, as many think, the calibration is wrong.
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. California: Stanford University Press, ISBN 0-8047-1569-6. Dendrochronology is used to determine variations in the C14/C12 ratio, but dendrochronology has assumptions that are not always valid (see bristlecone pine dating).
See: The walls of Jericho, The story of Jericho, and Q and A pages on the Ice Age and radiometric dating. Here are a few references on 14C calibration for Anthony: Bard, E., Hamelin, B., Fairbanks, R. (1995), Radiogenic Isotope Geology, Cambridge University Press. They even miss the flood when it is staring them in the face.
See also this useful offsite resource: Jericho chronology dispute. Robert Carter Yes, a decreasing magnetic field strength would allow for more cosmic rays to enter the atmosphere over time, which would induce increased rates of 14C production and throw off any ancient measurement with respect to modern values. G., and Zinder, A., (1990), Calibration of the 14C timescale over the past 30,000 years using mass spectrometric U-Th ages from Barbados corals, Nature, 345, 405-410. Paul, Sadly, I could not include the URL in your reply, but the article you cited was interesting nonetheless.
Becker, B., Kromer, B., and Trimborn P., 1991, A stable-isotope tree-ring timescale of the Late Glacial/Holocene boundary: Nature, vol. However, the "plateau" certainly does not equate to the Flood, for that would put the Flood in the middle of Egyptian history, the archaeological evidence of which is sitting on top of kilometers of Flood-deposited sediments.
I read the scientific article on the carbon dating done on the Jericho site written by Bruins and Van Der Plicht. W., 1993, A large drop in atmospheric 14-C/12-C and reduced melting in the Younger Dryas*, documented with 230-Th ages in corals: Science, vol. Establishment of a 7484-year chronology in the White Mountains of eastern-central California, USA. And uncalibrated dates are usually only off by less than 20%.
When I did the math from their results section of the YBP, they all turned out to be right around the year 1400 . But, lets be extremely conservative and say a 50,000 years old date is off by half.
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. That still puts the earth at over 20,000 years old.
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. So, why continue beating the 6,000 year old earth drum?