Is carbon dating reliable?

Answer 1

The premise of Radio-Carbon dating relies on an unproveable assumption. Namely, that the rate of deterioration of the measured isotope has been consistant throughout the entire period of the earth's existence. Since the rate of deterioration is variable under different atmospheric conditions, then we are brought to the question of atmospheric and climactic changes of what is assumed to be millions of years of the earth's age.

With the Bible giving us a historical record (whether you accept the Bible or not) of drastic changes in atmospheric conditions at the time of Noah's flood, then the question will remain open to further proof. What science does acknowledge is that there was a massive flood in the past, though they term it a regional to the Middle East.

Answer 2

No.
The most serious fault in radiocarbon-dating is in the assumption that the level of carbon 14 in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is now.
That level depends on the rate at which it is produced by cosmic rays.
Cosmic rays vary greatly in intensity at times, being largely affected by changes in the earth’s magnetic field.
Magnetic storms on the sun sometimes increase the cosmic rays a thousandfold for a few hours. And since the explosion of nuclear bombs, the worldwide level of carbon 14 has increased substantially.

Answer 3

Yes up to dates of around 15 000- 20 000 years and thereafter its reliability diminishes. It is only suspect in instances where organic material may have been contaminated but scientists are always open about the limitations of such evidence. I should point out to those who disagree that it is in fact confirmed by dating historical artefacts whose date of origin is known and by tree ring evidence etc. so creationists save yourselves the trouble of spouting your usual hot air.

Answer 4

The "carbon relationship" technique has been shown to be very unreliable. In his 2000 e book, Genes, human beings, and Languages, well known geneticist of Stanford college, Luigi Cavalli-Sforza, in a communicate on the conception of human evolution, commented on radiocarbon relationship, pointing out: “the most mandatory dates in present day human evolution are regrettably previous the range of the radiocarbon technique, which has a reduce of about 40,000 years” See source for extra information, fantastically the section "Dinosaur Bones really thousands of Years previous? " contained in the second one source.

Answer 5

Yes, given the constraints of it. It can't be used very accurately for very recent objects or for very old objects (there are other compounds that are more accurate for this, like KAr dating), but for the periods of human settlements, it is pretty accurate.

The dates need to be calibrated and the calibrations are actively being examined and adjusted by people who specialise in it - they are calibrated by looking at ice wharves and other information about the varying levels of CO2 in the air.

Answer 6

Pretty much. However, the thing that make it "unreliable" is contamination - like - when other substances find their way onto the thing you are trying to date...the carbon dating method might pick up the contaminant's age instead of what you want to test.

Answer 7

To about 2000 years.

Answer 8

yes - from the scientific point of view
no - from the religious one...

Answer 9

Yes. But the scientist who interpret it are not.