How do paleontologists determine how old those monkey man fossils they dug up actually are?

Question

They always sound pretty convincing when they proclaim them to be a gajillion years old.

If carbon dating is so inaccurate, it the scientific community blatently lying to us? Certainly they know carbon dating is only so accurate...

Answer 1

Honestly, I believe that their assessment of the age of the fossils they find is nothing more than a best guess based on carbon dating, the age of the ground they are found in and all of their other techniques, none of which are really accurate. But they sound convincing when they say it...

Answer 2

Carbon dating, which is apparently the only method of paleontological dating that opponents of scientific discovery have ever heard of, is actually only one of more than a dozen different methods of dating ancient strata in which fossils are found. In any given circumstance, carbon dating may be the best choice, as it is highly accurate for certain purposes, but not for others. When carbon dating is not the best choice, other more accurate methods are used. Often, multiple methods are used on the same sample, to cross-corroborate the findings. Besides, even if such dating were off by 50%, which it certainly is not, that wouldn't change any of the basic understandings of the evolutionary process.
.

Answer 3

Yes the scientific community is blatanly lying to us. Even though they would like you to believe that they are totally objective in what they do, they are extremely bias from an athiestic standpoint, and it reflects in what they say.
The real issue in all the dating methods is that they base all they say on the assumtion that all natural processes have continued from the beginning just as they are today. Any change in the atmosphere of this world could and would seriously affect the rate and the way carbon decomposing takes place and would throw off all their readings. So when they base their readings on conditions that exist today and don't consider that major changes would have existed over the billions of years that they are dealing with, they render their results useless. Actually the Bible speaks clearly about this in Peter 3:3 "Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, 4 and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation." 5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water"

Answer 4

I read somewhere that they can determine the age of the fossils based on the time period of the earth layer they find it in. Certainly you have seen the drawings of the cross sections of the earth that show all of the different layers from the surface all the way in to the center of the earth.
They have a general idea of how long ago each layer was formed, and that gives them a general idea of how old things found at that layer actually are.

JAN: What chapter and verse of the bible are you referring to that talks about the age of the earth?

Answer 5

Why would you think the scientific community was lying? First of all, scientists follow the scientific method, publish articles, encourage debate and verification, and focus on valid evidence. There is no "head of all scientists" who makes proclamations not based on anything.

On the other hand, religious leaders make unfounded proclamations all the time, based on literally nothing with no regard for evidence. Who do you trust (hint: not the religious leaders).

To answer your question, take a paleontolgy course or ask a paleontologist. You'll find they are open, honest, and their answers make sense.

Answer 6

Carbon dating's only good from 10,000 years to 50,000 years. Any earlier or later and the slightest skew or deviation causes wildly inaccurate results.

However, C-14 is not the only radioactive element out there. Bones are made out of potassium and, wouldn't you know it, there are radioactive isotopes of potassium. These isotopes have much longer half-lifes.

Fossils are of a biological origin but of mineralogic substance. Radiocarbon dating only works on biological substance. You need mineralogical based dating for mineralogic substance like fossils. Potassium dating is one of those dating methods.

Answer 7

Actually, (and I'm just a plain old Christian - not a paleo specialist by any stretch) the carbon dating is quite accurate.
This earth is billions and billions of years old. The Bible states that - it even says that there was an earth age before this one we live in now. The earth is eons old. Gajillions of years old is correct, and thats Gods Word, except he doesn't say gajillions He just says eons.

Answer 8

Carbon dating can be a few thousand years off either way which to us seems like a lot but in geological terms that is the equivalent of being 10 seconds off.

Answer 9

Carbon dating only dates fossils from less than 30 000 odd years ago which in geological time is nothing. They use radio isotopic dating which is reasonably accurate. The limitations of Carbon dating are known but its accuracy is supported by tree ring data etc.

Answer 10

Carbon dating of some materials is extreamely accurate. About plus or minus 1/2 percent.