XXX Chats

Duffy im web cam live sex chat

Radiocarbon dating is wrong

Carbon dating is used to determine the age of biological artifacts up to 50,000 years old.

This technique is widely used on recent artifacts, but educators and students alike should note that this technique will not work on older fossils (like those of the dinosaurs alleged to be millions of years old).

This technique is not restricted to bones; it can also be used on cloth, wood and plant fibers.

Levels of carbon-14 become difficult to measure and compare after about 50,000 years (between 8 and 9 half lives; where 1% of the original carbon-14 would remain undecayed).

The question should be whether or not carbon-14 can be used to date any artifacts at all? There are a few categories of artifacts that can be dated using carbon-14; however, they cannot be more 50,000 years old.

Carbon-14 cannot be used to date biological artifacts of organisms that did not get their carbon dioxide from the air.

This rules out carbon dating for most aquatic organisms, because they often obtain at least some of their carbon from dissolved carbonate rock.

The age of the carbon in the rock is different from that of the carbon in the air and makes carbon dating data for those organisms inaccurate under the assumptions normally used for carbon dating.

radiocarbon dating is wrong-89

This restriction extends to animals that consume seafood in their diet.

As stated previously, carbon dating cannot be used on artifacts over about 50,000 years old.

These artifacts have gone through many carbon-14 half-lives, and the amount of carbon-14 remaining in them is miniscule and very difficult to detect.

Carbon dating cannot be used on most fossils, not only because they are almost always allegedly too old, but also because they rarely contain the original carbon of the organism that has been fossilized.

Also, many fossils are contaminated with carbon from the environment during collection or preservation procedures.

Comments Radiocarbon dating is wrong

  • Is carbon dating a reliable method for determining the age of.
    Reply

    This is perhaps the greatest point of potential error, as assumptions about dating can lead to circular reasoning, or choosing confirming results, rather than accepting a “wrong” date. Second, radiocarbon dating becomes more difficult, and less accurate, as the sample gets older. The bodies of living things generally have.…

  • Debate Radiometric Dating is Accurate
    Reply

    This data shows that radiometric dating is unreliable and questionable at best. I have many more examples to share, but space does not permit. I will elaborate in further rounds and I hope to address Pros assertion that independent dating methods correlate with the radiometric dates. Although, by showing that radiometric.…

  • Radiometric Dating — Is It Accurate? Creation Today
    Reply

    Sep 19, 2011. 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.…

  • More Bad News for Radiometric Dating - UNC Computer Science
    Reply

    This belief in long ages for the earth and the existence of life is derived largely from radiometric dating. These long time periods are computed by measuring the ratio of daughter to parent substance in a rock and inferring an age based on this ratio. This age is computed under the assumption that the parent substance say.…

  • How accurate is carbon dating? - Quora
    Reply

    Year Limit The Lamont-Doherty group says uranium-thorium dating not only is more precise than carbon dating in some cases, but also can be used to date much older objects. Carbon dating is unreliable for objects older than about 30,000 years, but uranium-thorium dating may be possible for objects up to half a.…