Why is radio carbon dating still taught as a true, accurate process?

Question

"The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth was 15,380 RCY ago while the skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY."
(Natural History, September 1949, p.300

Answer 1

Because it *is* remarkably accurate!

You are quoting a single line from a *1949* article as your counter-evidence?!

Uhm ... the science of radiocarbon dating has progressed a bit since 1949.

-----

After a little more research on that quote, you seem to be referencing a long discredited argument by Kent Hovind ("Dr. Dino"). Believe me he is not the place to go for accurate information. Even other creationists like answersingenesis.com find his answers and tactics embarassing.

To quote one rebuttal (see first source) of Hovind's example:

"The 15,380 and 21,300 BP dates come from separate mammoths, and it is noted that the 21,300 date is invalid because it comes from a hide soaked in glycerin. "

(Incidentally, glycerin-soaking the hide is an example of the type of thing done in 1949 that we now know invalidates results.)

But it gets worse. I found another critique of Hovind's mammoth" dating claim:

"In professional paper 862 I found those Fairbanks Creek mammoth dates. These two dates were mentioned in the Dr. Bartelt’s quote above. The item dated 15,380 was found in “Frozen silt 26 m below surface” by Osborn in 1940. The item dated 21,300 was found “With beaver dam” by Geist in 1948 and has an unreliable date because it was soaked in glycerine. These are not the same animal. Furthermore both creationist sources refer to “the” Fairbanks Creek mammoth as if there was only one."

In other words, the paper that Hovind cites doesn't actually say they were from the same mammoth. So Hovind put quotation marks around something that the author did not say!

(And my second source below gives other *glaring* examples.)

Stay away from Kent Hovind (and people like him)! He is a known fraud, and he will make you look like a total fool when you use his arguments.

Answer 2

I must agree with what Zaphod No1 has said, and add something to it: that solar flares and other natural phenomena have also altered the naturally occurring abundance of radio carbon, resulting in episodes of peak radiocarbon deposition, making remains from prior eras appear enormously older by comparison.

Rocks brought back from the Moon show glazing on their top surface; i.e., evidence of short term but intense heating due to solar flares. The effects on Earth would have been dramatically different. There would have been boiling at the top layers of the oceans, hurricanes of live steam, widespread extinction of species in areas exposed to the sunlight (probably in the American hemisphere), condensation and ice deposition at the poles after the flare faded. There would also have been enormously increased radiocarbon conversion due to increased volume of accelerated solar particle impacts in our upper atmosphere.

If there was an era during which Earth was partially shaded from intense solar radiation, and it was later removed, there would also be in increase in the abundance of radiocarbon. I am disturbed that these exceptions are not mentioned, yet this is only human nature: to present the evidence that supports one’s own views and no other.

21 DEC 06, 1831 hrs, GMT.

Answer 3

It is a relatively accurate process (i.e. +/- 3000 years), the half life of C14 is about 6000 years (5730 - wikipedia) and methods of detection have come on since 1949 when the method was first proposed. This is still more accurate than determination through sediment position etc. However, the human race is also messing this up, future (millenia) studies will not be able to use radiocarbon dating due to the production and distribution of radioactive carbon, we have essentially changed the natural abundance!

Answer 4

Hey truth seeker have you ever had to work wit ha radio active isotope?

I'm guessing no. Some of us have. I can assure you that new P32 has to be ordered like clockwork. It's not good for 1 week some times, then 3 weeks, then 2 days, then a month. Every 2 weeks it needs to be replaced. That could be why it's taught as true.

Answer 5

You're reference is 57 years old and for only one occurence. That doesn't negate the technique. Here's some info;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating#The_need_for_calibration