I recently read an article which stated,"Radioactive carbon-14 has commonly been measured in coal and diamonds, indicating that the earth is less than 100,000 years old! If a sample is older than 100,000 years, there should be no carbon-14 remaining. Contamination is the usual uniformitarian dodge, but how can a diamond be contaminated with outside carbon? Furthermore, such young carbon-14 dates in “old” carbon are more the rule than the exception!" ?
2007-01-23 03:54:40 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Earth Sciences & Geology
Not really. It can "read" something up to about 4500 years but then the accuracy drops off rapidly. There actually have been "readings" taken of live bones that said they were 1000s of years old. I wouldn't put much stock in it.
2007-01-23 04:17:13 · answer #1 · answered by capnemo 5 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Radiocarbon dating has been repeatedly tested, demonstrating its accuracy. It is calibrated by tree-ring data, which gives a nearly exact calendar for more than 11,000 years back. It has also been tested on items for which the age is known through historical records, such as parts of the Dead Sea scrolls and some wood from an Egyptian tomb.
In my experience, those questioning radiocarbon dating results and evidence for an old Earth have a political axe to grind. They parrot results that either have never been verified or have been completely refuted.
Nonetheless, who says a diamond has to be as old as the Earth? What does one thing have to do with the other? Artificial diamonds can be made in a geological instant.
2007-01-23 04:17:03 · answer #2 · answered by gebobs 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
those factors are taken under consideration while doing the courting. In some areas, C14 courting won't be able to additionally be used, so different techniques could be performed to this factor the pattern. Scientists are no longer idiots. They understand approximately those issues, and maximum suitable for them. in the event that they can't maximum suitable for them, then they can't use the approach for that pattern. as an occasion, the carbon that's dated in organic and organic maintains to be comes from the ambience, however the quantity of C14 interior the ambience modifications by the years. Scientists can use ice cores from Antarctica that have trapped C14 interior the ice after snow falls over one hundred,000s of years to verify how lots to maximum suitable for a pattern's dates if the stratigraphy factors a coarse estimate. evaluate additionally the multitude of different courting isotopic courting practices that are used to learn and double examine the date and you finally end up getting an somewhat solid thought of the term, interior some years. trouble-free.
2016-12-16 11:34:41 · answer #3 · answered by Erika 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First because C-14's half life is short, it can't be used to determine the age of the earth. I'd be very surprised if coal is commonly younger than 100,000 years, and would be amazed if diamonds showed that young an age. Where did you read that? Was it in a scientific publication or in a creationist publication? I'd suggest you try to document the original source for that information...I'd be interested to know what you find.
But yes, C-14 dating is quite accurate.
2007-01-23 04:15:15 · answer #4 · answered by hcbiochem 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Very accurate, I'm betting that was in anti-science literature. Carbon dating doesn't apply to things more than about 20,000 years old, beyond that you need to use things like fission-track dating and K-Ar. Contamination is pretty easy in any sampling, you need to be extraordinarily careful not to risk contamination by obtaining fresh samples from inside specimens. I'd check your sources, and look at the rest of what you are reading--they didn't say that to make you well-informed, they said that because they are anti-science.
2007-01-23 09:32:09 · answer #5 · answered by kiddo 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Wherever you read the article, I will bet it wasn't in any scientific journal. There is an excellent site you should bookmark, it is called the Index to Creationist Claims and explains the science that is so often misrepresented by the charlatans at ICR, AiG etc.
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/
An answer to your question will be found here
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html
with further articles about specific cases listed here
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CF200
Take some time to read them, check the references and suggestions for further reading and you will understand some science - a subject that seems to have eluded you so far.
2007-01-23 08:36:47 · answer #6 · answered by tentofield 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
it won't get down to hours minutes or seconds but it will do......argon-potassium is more accurate tho
2007-01-23 04:01:13 · answer #7 · answered by ? 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋