this link tells a lot about carbon dating . http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:bRBPQtvRQtwJ:www.archaeologyexpert.co.uk/RadioCarbonDating.html+live+carbon+dateing+test&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1
the section on new or old gives info on a freshly killed seal that was dated at 1300 years old and snail shells just killed to be 27000 years old.If carbon dating is so accurate then should we all be eating snails and seal meat so we can live longer?
2007-02-11 13:51:47 · 22 answers · asked by checkerboardblue 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Carbon dating, as well as other dating methods is subjective and often open to interpretation. No dating method is 100% perfect. For an informative article on Carbon Dating, I post this link:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp
I would post the piece, but it is fairly lengthy.
2007-02-11 14:00:35 · answer #1 · answered by BrotherMichael 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
That is a very interesting site. Knowledgeable people know that carbon dating is not reliable for objects more than a few thousand years old. The link that you gave illustrates some other anomalies the shed further doubt on carbon dating.
Evolutionists will dispute this, as carbon dating is the basis of validation for their beliefs.
2007-02-11 14:14:16 · answer #2 · answered by iraqisax 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Carbon dating is problematic
it is only claimed valid for dating this once living, but has given pretty anomalous results
the RATE project (Radio Isotopes and the Age of the earth) noted that C14 can be the creationists friend. Interestingly, when coal samples were tested for C14 from the top of the geological column to the bottom they had roughly the same amount of C14 and even 'Cambrian diamonds" which are said to be 300 million years old had roughly the same C14 levels This leans not in the direction of millions of years but is more consistent with thousands of years of geological age
A second area of interest the RATE project found in its 8 year study was in the area of helium diffusion. In the process of decay Urainium gives off 8 helium nuclei and when the helium was examined in zircons (claimed the oldest thigns on earth) 40% of the helium is still in the zircon and the remaining has not moved very far in the surrounding biotite material... in the end did not move far enough for the earth to be older than 10,000 years and consistent with a young earth model
there is allot of material on C14 and also on
the RATE project at http://www.answersingenesis.org
2007-02-11 14:04:42 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Carbon dating leads to carbon marriage.
2007-02-11 13:59:55 · answer #4 · answered by neil s 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I have never dated a carbon only the real thing. I think carbon is obsolete anyway since the copy machine.
2007-02-11 13:59:44 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
atheists and evolutionist preach science science science...but when their own science proves a science wrong....they scream foul or the doings of a christian. that's so funny.
carbon dating is false, been false and been a false science started by a freak pot scientist. just cause someone put something in a book doesn't mean it right, true or even real. you all say that yourself when you say the bible isn't true. so if the oldest book known to man can't be true, then current books can't be true either. can't have your cake and eat it too.
carbon dating is a false science, period. the evidence is out there for anyone to find out for themselves....but the weak to choose to call names instead of finding out the truth....as the truth will make them realize they live a lie...and they just can't mentally handle that.
2007-02-11 14:01:38 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
it's not too reliable. 1000 years ago, objects might have been giving off carbon at a different pace than now. So something that is 1000000 years old might only be 1000.
2007-02-11 14:05:35 · answer #7 · answered by CrazySnail 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The website discusses the problems with simple C14:C12 dating. It ignores the fact that there are tree rings. You can create data using the wood from preindustrial layers of trees to overcome the effect of fossil fuels. In fact, you can use them to build a year by year record of C14 incorporation in the biosphere. You can also correct with the C13 ratios, and the site fails to mention this.
2007-02-12 05:45:03 · answer #8 · answered by novangelis 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It can be 2 or 3 thousand years off.
2007-02-11 14:01:08 · answer #9 · answered by citrus punch 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
c14 carbons are extremely difficult to process. They easily sway to contamination, which sucks I guess.
generally, carbon dating can be pretty accurate though.
2007-02-11 13:57:07 · answer #10 · answered by Dutch Dolly 1 · 6⤊ 1⤋