Can carbon-14 dating be trusted?

Answer 1

Yes. Radiocarbon dating is extremely reliable within the time range (about 50,000 years) that it is known to work. It is also possible that very recent artifacts (the last 2,000 years since the industrial revolution), may be miscalibrated due to the effects of humans on carbon in the atmosphere.

The biggest inaccuracy with the dating of artifacts is not the radiocarbon dating itself, which is very reliable, but the handling of the artifacts being tested. Modern finds are very reliably handled, but this can be a problem when we go back to date things that were excavated 50, 70, 100 years ago and have been sitting in some dingy museum soaking in a jar of formaldehyde for 50 years.

Answer 2

Radiocarbon labs generally report an uncertainty, e.g., 3000±30BP indicates a standard deviation of 30 radiocarbon years. Traditionally this includes only the statistical counting uncertainty and some labs supply an "error multiplier" that can be multiplied by the uncertainty to account for other sources of error in the measuring process. Additional error is likely to arise from the nature and collection of the sample itself, e.g., a tree may accumulate carbon over a significant period of time. Such old wood, turned into an artifact some time after the death of the tree, will reflect the date of the carbon in the wood.

The current maximum radiocarbon age limit lies in the range between 58,000 and 62,000 years. This limit is encountered when the radioactivity of the residual 14C in a sample is too low to be distinguished from the background radiation.

Above is from wikipedia encyclopedia online.

Answer 3

Yes, but today we have many others tests that help to fix the real age of things. And much, some natural factors maybe to influence the carbon-14, like the Jesus Christ wear.

Answer 4

Because carbon-14 always dates predictably, it is extremely useful. However, it is limited in dating newer substances due its logarithmic decay rate. In more recent deposits, so little decay has occured that the error factor may be larger than the date obtained. The practical upper limit is about 50,000 years, because after that, there is so LITTLE that remains it is difficult to obtain an accurate reading.

Answer 5

I did somewhat of diagnosis and got here up with the precis of their artwork on the solutions in Genesis website. The quoote that set alarm bells ringing replaced into "Samples from coal layers conventionally “dated” at 40–320 million years previous all yielded radiocarbon age estimates of round 50,000 years" all of us who knows somewhat bit about C14 courting will keep in mind that fifty,000 years is close to sufficient the optimal age which will nicely be measured with the help of the technique. At that factor the decay fee drops so low that it turns into indistinguishable from heritage noise. So until eventually they were utilizing the AMS technique (and the article i stumbled on would not say so), then they were probably basically measuring heritage radiation.

Answer 6

100 per cent yes, its a proven fact, religious fanatics try to dispute carbon dating with arguments not based on real science but it is a fact.

Answer 7

If they did all there math correct and agreed upon a solution, yes. it can be trusted by any that believe and agree that it exists.

Answer 8

Depends how far back you want to go. Like many things, you must understand it's limitations.

Answer 9

Yes.

Answer 10

Usually, but under certain conditions, there can be gross errors. Simple answer, NO!