# Good idea. is carbon dating completely accurate final, sorry, but

May 11 Read Apr 28 Read Apr 16 Read Apr 11 Read Mar 02 Read Feb 24 Read May 07 Read

Apr 11 Read Mar 02 Read Feb 24 Read May 07 Read Apr 30 Read At least to the uninitiated, carbon dating is generally assumed to be a sure-fire way to predict the age of any organism that once lived on our planet. Without understanding the mechanics of it, we put our blind faith in the words of scientists, who assure us that carbon dating is a reliable method of determining the ages of almost everything around us.

However, a little more knowledge about the exact ins and outs of carbon dating reveals that perhaps it is not quite as fool-proof a process as we may have been led to believe. At its most basic level, carbon dating is the method of determining the age of organic material by measuring the levels of carbon found in it.

Specifically, there are two types of carbon found in organic materials: carbon 12 C and carbon 14 C It is imperative to remember that the material must have been alive at one point to absorb the carbon, meaning that carbon dating of rocks or other inorganic objects is nothing more than inaccurate guesswork. All living things absorb both types of carbon; but once it dies, it will stop absorbing.

The C is a very stable element and will not change form after being absorbed; however, C is highly unstable and in fact will immediately begin changing after absorption.

Specifically, each nucleus will lose an electron, a process which is referred to as decay.

## Radiometric Dating - Is It Accurate?

Half-life refers to the amount of time it takes for an object to lose exactly half of the amount of carbon or other element stored in it. This half-life is very constant and will continue at the same rate forever.

Jan 30, Carbon dating is fairly accurate. The issue can be deposition and what's being measured. It's akin to watching CSI when they somehow miraculously exclude the other thousand bits of DNA from the hotel room and perform tests in minutes on 'the right' sample and then just happen to have the 'immaculate conception' data base on hand. Oct 18, Carbon Dating Gets a Reset. Climate records from a Japanese lake are providing a more accurate timeline for dating objects as far back as 50, yearsAuthor: Nature Magazine.

The half-life of carbon is 5, years, which means that it will take this amount of time for it to reduce from g of carbon to 50g - exactly half its original amount. Similarly, it will take another 5, years for the amount of carbon to drop to 25g, and so on and so forth.

By testing the amount of carbon stored in an object, and comparing to the original amount of carbon believed to have been stored at the time of death, scientists can estimate its age. Unfortunately, the believed amount of carbon present at the time of expiration is exactly that: a belief, an assumption, an estimate. It is very difficult for scientists to know how much carbon would have originally been present; one of the ways in which they have tried to overcome this difficulty was through using carbon equilibrium.

Equilibrium is the name given to the point when the rate of carbon production and carbon decay are equal. By measuring the rate of production and of decay both eminently quantifiablescientists were able to estimate that carbon in the atmosphere would go from zero to equilibrium in 30, - 50, years.

Since the universe is estimated to be millions of years old, it was assumed that this equilibrium had already been reached. However, in the s, the growth rate was found to be significantly higher than the decay rate; almost a third in fact. They attempted to account for this by setting as a standard year for the ratio of C to C, and measuring subsequent findings against that.

In short, the answer is sometimes.

### Why Carbon Dating Might Be in Danger

Sometimes carbon dating will agree with other evolutionary methods of age estimation, which is great. Most concerning, though, is when the carbon dating directly opposes or contradicts other estimates.

At this point, the carbon dating data is simply disregarded. It has been summed up most succinctly in the words of American neuroscience Professor Bruce Brew:. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely out of date, we just drop it.

This is similar to our dice analogy. We cannot tell what number we will roll in any one shake, but if we rolled 6, dice, the chances are very high that 1, of them would have landed on a six.

One dice is ususanneill.comedictable. Many dice follow a statistically predictable pattern. In the same way, one U atom is ususanneill.comedictable, but a sample containing many millions of U atoms will be very predictable.

What happens statistically is that half of the available atoms will have decayed in a given period, specific to each radioactive species, called the half-life. For example, if element Aa had a half-life of 1 day and we had 1, lbs.

# Is carbon dating completely accurate

By observing how fast U decays into lead, we can calculate the half-life of U This is a theoretical calculation, and we can therefore determine that the half-life of U is 4. Remember that the half-life is a statistical measure.

Granting that U has a half-life of 4. A very common rock that contains U is granite.

If we look at some of the very small zircon crystals in granite, we can accurately measure how much U and Pb the crystal contains. In order to calculate the age of the rock, we need three other pieces of information:.

Using the above assumptions, it is calculated that the zircon crystals have an age of about 1. The radioactive decay process above can be seen to produce 8 alpha-particles for each one atom of U The rate of diffusion of helium from a zircon crustal can be measured.

### Post a Comment

It turns out that this rate of diffusion of helium is compatible with the crystals being about 5, years old, not 1. Although assumptions 2 and 3 are not provable, they actually seem very likely in this particular example.

Therefore, it seems that the first assumption must be wrong 1.

Remember that we have already said that these experimenters are highly skilled. It is therefore unlikely that the laboratory technicians have made a mistake in their measurements of U or Pb The only possible conclusion, therefore, is that the half-life of U has not been constant throughout the lifetime of the granite and its zircon crystals.

We will deal with carbon dating first and then with the other dating methods. How the carbon clock works. Carbon has unique properties that are essential for life on Earth. Familiar to us as the black substance in charred wood, as diamonds, and the graphite in "lead" pencils, carbon comes in several forms, or . Unfortunately, tree ring dating is itself not entirely reliable, especially the "long chronology" employed to calibrate the carbon dating method. The result is that carbon dating is accurate for only a few thousand years. Anything beyond that is questionable. This fact is born out in how carbon dating results are used by scientists in the. Radiocarbon dating (also referred to as carbon dating or carbon dating) is a method for determining the age of an object containing organic material by using the properties of radiocarbon, a radioactive isotope of carbon. The method was developed in the late s at the University of Chicago by Willard Libby, who received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work in

Other radiometric dating methods are based on similar assumptions. If the assumptions cannot be trusted, then the calculations based on them are unsound. It is for this reason that creationists question radiometric dating methods and do not accept their results.

(1.) C14 dating is very accurate for wood used up to about 4, years ago. This is only because it is well calibrated with objects of known age. Example: wood found in a grave of known age by historically reliable documents is the standard for that time for the C14 content. This standard content of C14 can then be used for wood not associated. Radiometric dating is a much misunderstood phenomenon. Evolutionists often misunderstand the method, assuming it gives a definite age for tested samples. Creationists also often misunderstand it, claiming that the process is inaccurate. Radiometric Dating Is Not Inaccurate Perhaps a good place to start this article would be to affirm that radiometric dating is not inaccurate. It is. If you believe the scientists, radiocarbon dating is an infallible method of measuring the age of artifacts, plant life, archaeological, human and animal remains, remnants of previous civilization and epochs on earth. The basic idea behind radioca.

Radiometric Dating - Is It Accurate? Radiometric Dating Is Not Inaccurate Perhaps a good place to start this article would be to affirm that radiometric dating is not inaccurate. Therefore the process is: Uranium Decay Equation. About the Author: Eric Hovind. Eric Hovind grew up immersed in the world of apologetics and following college graduation inhe began full-time ministry.