How accurate is Carbon 14 dating?

I'll be around shortly to comment.
Right now i need to get out my Chick Comic
collection and research the matter

 

Although I am a YEC, I think you have misunderstood a few things, John6:63 --

Carbon dating is only valid for about 50,000 years evolutionarily. http://www.c14dating.com/int.html is an excellent page to learn about radiocarbon dating. My husband and I also have a short response to a question about it on his Discussions page here:
http://www.setterfield.org/RadiometricDating.htm#dendro

Hope that helps a little.

 

Helen: "Although I am a YEC, I think you have misunderstood a few things, John6:63 -- "

Thank you, Sister Helen.
Back in 1989 I read an intersting proof
from a Rabbi that proved from the Torah
that the universe was in access of
15 Billion years old. Well back then
some scientists only thought the universe
was 9 Billion years old. But now they
teach it is more like 12 Billion years
old. It may be that someday the
"some sientists" will teach that the
universe is 15 Billion years old, just
like the Rabbi got from the Torah
(much like our Old Testament).

Of course, i didn't save the argument

The Jews do date their calendar from
the creation of Adam by G-d. The
Jewish year 5763 started in Sept 2002
on our calendar. So God created Adam
some 5763 years ago. I believe this
to be true.

\o/ Praise Jesus \o/

 

Here's an article on one way to calibrate C14 processes on an absolute scale.

http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/varves.html

It should be noted that there are many ways to get erroneous readings for C14. Clam shells, for example, get most of the carbon in their shells from geological sources, and thus would give a very ancient date. Only material which derived its carbon from atmospheric sources, or organisms that had done so recently would be accurately datable.

 

>>>>>>>>To presume a certain level of Carbon 14 in
an organism is to know the amount of Carbon 14 in the air and environment.
Scientists conducting this Carbon 14 dating assume that the amount in the
environment hasn’t changed, ....<<<<<<<


No, the above is not correct. It was true 40 years ago, that the assumption was made that the amount of C-14 in the environment was constant.....and to a rough approximation that is true. but the present methods of C-14 correct for the fact that the amount in the environment has not been precisely the same over time. The first link that Helen gives contains good information. The second link to her own web site, references bad information from Trevor Major who makes the same mistake as shown above.

 

Which scientists say this?

 

Environments are always changing somewhere. The small number of "living fossils" are evidence that unchanging environments are rather uncommon, over millions of years.

What scientists say environments are unchanging?

 

There have have replies that explain this. At one time the amount of C14 in the atmosphere was assumed to be constant, which was not a bad assumption. But to make it more accurate, the level is now calibrated using items of known age to give the exact level of C14 at a given time. Using the calibration, we know the level of C14 and do not have to make assumptions. How is it calibrated? One example. Take very old trees. The rings give you the age of the tree. By dating each ring you can calibrate the C14 level at that time. If you had followed Helen's secong link, I assume you would have been given some of the problems with this. The problems, simply, are along the lines of how do you know you are counting every ring and how do you know that the rings are always annual. But think of it this way... Using the tree rings, for example, you can go back at least a few thousand years. What difference does it make if you are off 50 or 100 years out of a few thousand years counting rings? You can still show that the C14 level has been rather constant in that time period. I, personally, am not aware of methods to calibrate earlier than that. But, C14 is produced in the atmosphere by the action of cosmic rays. So one method you could try to use to discredit C14 dating would be if you could show evidence that there have been large variations in the long term rate of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere in the past but not in the time since we have calibration methods.

 

Not fixing contradictions, just making it more accurate.

Is it a contradiction that a modern atomic clock reads a difference in time than an old watch that you suddenly finds reads, say, two minutes slow every few days? No. And it is not a contradiction to improve the accuracy of a measurement. Unless you can show that the corrections made significant enough changes in the measurement to render the previous measurements useless and conclusions drawn from them incorrect.

 

As it has already been pointed out to you, including by people on your side, no one credible would say such a thing because C14 dating is only good to about 50,000 years. You could not get a date even in the hundreds of thousands of years, much less millions of years, from carbon dating. The statement has absolutely no meaning. This story has holes.

You do not seem to have a very good impression of science. May I ask specifically why?

 

john6:63

Just some friendly advice. Throwing around personal insults, charges of lying and a bad attitude are not very convincing and do not give a good first impression.

 

I'd hardly call that wishy washy. If science wasn't willing to change their views based on new evidence, we'd still be bloodletting, living with a flat earth, and believing that the earth is the center of the universe.

 

>>>>>>Is there a logical explanation why a geologist friend of mine carbon dated a fresh apple from a local supermarket during college and found it to be millions of years old?

Man, that science project was all goofed up….huh? Somebody misinterpreted some data somewhere.<<<<<

Yes, there is a logical explanation. The way you describe it, the "dating" was done by a college student with little or no experience in radiocarbon dating. He and you underestimate the very substantial knowledge and experience that is necessary to perform this dating method. Not only is a great deal of experience required, but a substantial investment in equipment is also required. Radiocarbon dating is not done in college laboratories but in specialized laboratories set up at great expense just for that purpose. There are many, many pitfalls in store for anyone who tries it on a low budget and without the proper training. I suspect that something like that happened in the case you relate. It is beyond the skill of even a bright college student, unless they are willing to devote months to setting up a laboratory and unless they have a substantial budget. It cannot be done on the fly. So the problem is a basic lack of understanding on your part, rather than some problem with the science.

 

>>>>>>>As was stated the same scientist that clamed that in order to properly date a fossil using the Carbon 14 process they had to assume the amount of Carbon in the environment “hasn’t” changed, BUT those same scientist say that the environment “HAS” changed due to ice age, dinosaurs extinction…etc…etc.. which IS TRUE. This affects the Carbon in the environment. Therefore Carbon 14 dating discredited their “old world” assumption.<<<<

Again the problem is with your lack of understanding of what you read, rather than a problem with the science. When you say the environment has changed or has not changed, that is a very broad statement that has so little detail it is useless. When some details are provided, the problem vanishes. Many environmental changes would not affect the C-14 dating method at all. The most significant change which would affect the C-14 method is the cosmic ray flux, which affects the amount of C-14 produced. But the cosmic ray flux is not connected to the entire range of possible environmental changes, such as snowfall, temperature etc. So be careful about assuming that this or that environmental change will affect the C-14 dating method. That ain't necessarily true. The contradiction exists only in your own mind because you don't know enough about the method.