Everything that I have read seems to point to it being limited in its accuracy. Measuring the decay rate of the carbon 14 isotope beyond 60,000 years just isn't very accurate at all. Carbon dating seems to do nothing more than give scientists a basis upon which they derive a date.
Short answer... not very accurate at all.
2007-01-12 04:15:00
·
answer #1
·
answered by safetman59 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Carbon dating is accurate, but only up to a certain point. If one is trying to date something within a few hundred or even a few thousand years it's effective. But millions of years... Not so much. There is lots of interesting scholarly articles on the web that talk about the decay rate and half life of the carbon 14 atom. We really don't have a clue as to how old those dinosaur bones and monkey man skull fragments at the museum actually are.
2007-01-12 04:30:34
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Carbon dating is extremely inaccurate. It has shown that a living mussel is 2,000 years old, and a freshly killed seal is 8,000 years old. Another problem is that evolutionary scientists throw out 99.9% of the dates they get from any dating method; if it doesn't fit the preconceived "geological column" (which doesn't exist anywhere in the world except in a textbook), then they toss out the date. For example, scientists will never use Carbon dating on a dinosaur bone. Why? Because it doesn't fit their preconceived notion that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. Do you see how the theory of evolution is an impediment to scientific progress? The funny thing is, if they did Carbon date a dinosaur bone, it would register as being only about 6,000 years old (give or take a few thousand, due to error).
2007-01-11 09:40:37
·
answer #3
·
answered by FUNdie 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
My understanding is this, Carbon Dating has only been in use about 100 years ago.
My questions are these for people of science.
1. How can a person tell what happens to any curve thousands, millions, or billions of years ago when the science has only been used about 100 years?
2. How did they determine that the half-life of Carbon-14 is 5,730 years if the technology is only about 100 years old?
Nothing decays at a linear rate.
grace2u
2007-01-11 09:46:56
·
answer #4
·
answered by Theophilus 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Pretty accurate, but a lot of things can mess with the results. That is the good thing about having the luxury of carbon dating many samples, when they all show about the same thing, you know it's accurate :)
2007-01-11 09:32:18
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
a million) Why can we believe a ruler is precise? similar deal. 2) The measurements are finished by technique of human beings, sure. They degree something *not* made by technique of human beings. 3) No, they don't use round relationship. they stumbled on decay charges to be fairly in step with time, and from the ratio of how a lot has decayed to how a lot hasn't, it isn't that puzzling to workout consultation the time necessary to do this. 4) How can a device let us know appropriately how a lot metal and urban we want to make a progression, being only a device? 5) it isn't mistakes data in any respect. an truly tremendous element of technology generally is searching, comparing, and handling mistakes. it truly is why they are going to actual provide results of, eg. 120 years plus or minus ten years.
2016-11-23 12:38:10
·
answer #6
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
from the latest research i've heard about. The carbon dating accuracy has been noted as not entirely accurate. The carbon they used was believed to be constant. Whelp, they foudn its no longer constant. Thats how the tested a yak's hair at 22k years. that same yak's skin at 15k years, and the yak's leg hair at 50k years. or something similiar.
2007-01-11 09:35:17
·
answer #7
·
answered by Droppinshock 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I only date carbon-based life forms, and it is very accurate.
2007-01-11 09:31:32
·
answer #8
·
answered by mullah robertson 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
Probably 10 to 20% inaccuracy window, subject to physical or chemical anomalies along the history that might provide false readings.
It's about as good as a lie detector is.
2007-01-11 09:32:33
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
depends on what is being analysed. but generally within a decade or so if it is fairly recent or a century if it is really ancient. And yes, dinosaur bones are very good things to analyse because of the isotopes found in them
2007-01-11 09:33:44
·
answer #10
·
answered by judy_r8 6
·
0⤊
0⤋