What is the principle assumption for radiocarbon dating to be reliable

---

Then we compare the two and adjust the radiocarbon date to the known date. By making thousands if not millions of these adjustments we get a very good idea of how old a piece of unknown material can be. Yes, this is a range of possible dates. The calibration set is here. Basically, the calibration curves are off by no more than 16 years over the historical range 6, years or so and no more than years over the last 20, years.

Long story short, scientists have always known that variations in C concentration happen. Scientists, using rigorous methods have established a process to eliminate this problem by calibrating radiocarbon dating results to items of a known age. In this way, items of unknown age can be tested and an age determined to a reasonable degree of accuracy.

Did you have any logical arguments or any actual evidence in what you stated. Your very statements are simply more assumptions — nothing more. His statements are perfectly logical. For 3 we do know that decay rates can be effected by external factors http: So answer me the following how is there C14 in diamonds? Calibrating is nonsense when all you know is either very young or an assumption. If you are attempting carbon dating on Dino bones or natural diamonds, the you have no idea what is going on. Tell me … why should I not do carbon dating on dino bones???

Because there should be no C14 in dino bones!! If the dino died Million years ago or whatever there should be no C14 left. Not a single atom. So why is there significant amounts of C14 in dino bones that we can measure within dating error bounds? With respect to isochron dating, samples from the western Canyon basalt lava flows some of the youngest were analyzed. Using the rubidium-strontium isochron dating method, an age of 1. These results have been repeated and confirmed over and over.

The parent-daughter assumptions in isochron dating simply replace the initial conditions assumption in simple dating methods. All these are claims without any evidence. However, there are plenty of opportunity for contamination. Geologists and paleontologists can easily tell if such sources of contamination are present. For example, Dahmer makes a critical error in talking about total carbon, not dividing it in inorganic and organic carbon.

Reader Comments

Thus, the carbon-based preservatives shellac and epoxies and ends up dating bone with no appreciable amount of organic carbon. Think about using acetic acid or methanol to clean dinosaur bones. Oops, those have modern carbon in them. Then you have to account for modern microorganisms that may live in the matrix of the bone itself. So, no, you provide a paper and we can fisk it. But with the known issues already presented, the attempt to get a valid carbon date from something that is older than 50kk years is fraught with peril.

Rb has a half-life of almost 50 billion years. Using it to date samples that are really million years old is a mistake. This is another common creationist tactic: So any contamination will alter that date by a huge range. Which means your date is probably within the error for that dating method. Have attached a table with dino C14 findings. Cool scientific method man!

You have to provide evidence of said soft tissue. This has been quite well refuted.

It was not dinosaur tissue. Flesh and tendons have been preserved in Pleistocene fossils, but under permafrost or hyper-arid cave conditions that mummify the tissue and do not carbonize it. Animal skeletons preserved under anoxic conditions have well preserved bone that can be either white Dansie et al. Decayed flesh is not preserved under these anoxic conditions. The logical source for the carbonaceous scrapings is the preservatives applied by museum technicians. I can look at the evidence.

I can be swayed by evidence. You can be swayed by anything that says what you want to hear.

Latest News

That is contrary to the scientific method and utterly illogical. As far as you can see all the correct processing has been followed …. But you just did date it! And you got a date that you believed … so why is it now suddenly wrong? Now you need to find a rescuing device to explain why the C14 reading is wrong. I prefer to stick to the scientific explanations rather than just making stuff up. Oh and the fact that even isochron dating gives consistently unexpected results even for samples taken from the same rock, and especially for lava flows of known age.

Personal webpages are allowed by most universities for faculty and students. Throw so much shit and hope some of it sticks. And not a single reference in the bunch. Why do you use the internet?

How Does Carbon Dating Work

The deposit in which the Tyrannosaurus rex fossil was found is dated at 70 million years. Not only were blood cells found, but soft and pliable tissue as well, including flexible blood vessels. Paleontologist Mary Schweitzer, who made the discovery in Montana, exclaimed: Soft and pliable tissue only after it was soaked in an acidic bath and minerals removed. Radiocarbon dating works quite well even matches across multiple types. I do continue to find it interesting that you quote large amounts of text without a reference. Is it Dahmer et al. They have Found C14 in Diamonds.

Made up fairy tale. Tell me, which Bible do you use? What about 1, 2, 3, and 4 Esdras, Psalms — , Odeas? What abour Prayer of Manasseh? The Gospel of Judas or the Gospel of Thomas?

Enoch, Jubilees, 1, 2, 3 Meqabyan? Will nothing shake your faith? The Fossils date the rocks, and the rocks date the fossils! Except that there are known explanations for this: The small apparent non-zero values are less than measurement error. Thus things like cosmic rays and imperfect vacuums can contribute to the C content even with modern techniques. While that same level of contamination will add some error to the dating of some reasonably aged sample, the error will be small, so long as the sample is not too old.

To submit an article for publication, see our Submission Guidelines.

Some icons appearing on this site were created by: Afterglow , Aha-Soft , AntialiasFactory , artdesigner. The World for People who Think. David Vejil The Trumpet. What about carbon dating? Doesn't that give accurate dates of "prehistoric" civilizations? Carbon dating is the ultimate benchmark of the evolutionary dating world. Everyone assumes that dates that follow the word "radiocarbon" are accurate, precise and sure. The basic principle of radiocarbon dating is that plants and animals absorb trace amounts of radioactive carbon from carbon dioxide CO2 in the atmosphere while they are alive but stop doing so when they die.

• good jokes for speed dating
• dating site template download
• sugar dating in kenya
• 100 free puerto rican dating sites
• dating friends site
• hook up electrolytic capacitor