Radio Carbon Dating, I trust it, but my friends argue with me about it...?

Question

Is there any way that I can convince them of it's practicality as a dating tequnique?

Convincing links please!

Haha Zackery, you made my day that, was a good joke!

Jeffry, my friends are wikihaters, they think that wikipedia is anti christian hatemongering. Do you have any other links that might be more in line with convincing peoople that are more close minded?

You guys are preaching to the choir, but do you have any links that would be sympathetic to my friends biases?

Hello Geolicious,

Your first link creates doubt in the process and your next three are university sites, Georgia, Minnesota and University of California respectively.

Does anyone know of any links that provide a christian perspective which support it?

Answer 1

After I wrote my original answer below (which I still urge you to read), I found this link, giving a Christian perspective in favor of the accuracy of radiometric dating ... including a good description of the science behind it. [Please note that this is about the general category of *radiometric* dating ... of which *radiocarbon* dating is just one of many examples (for more information about why the difference between *radiocarbon* and *radiometric* dating is important, see my original answer below).]

The author is Roger C. Wiens, who is both a Christian, and a geologist at Cal Tech. ... so he probably knows his stuff.

"Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective"
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

Excerpt:
"Many Christians have been led to distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent. Many are also unaware that Bible-believing
Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating.

"This paper describes in relatively simple terms how a number of the dating techniques work, how accurately the half-lives of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known, and how dates are checked with one another. In the process the paper refutes a number of misconceptions prevalent among Christians today."

By the way ... I hope you realize how sad it is that your friends are automatically skeptical of links from "universities" ... and require something from a "Christian perspective." It's not like we're debating the resurrection or the theology of the Holy Trinity here ... this is a discussion about the validity of a *scientific* measurement technique, so why aren't scientists considered credible in matters of science?

---------{Original answer follows}---------------

Hmm ... *radiocarbon* dating has very little use in Earth Science and Geology. Do you mean *radiometric* dating?

The fact that you post this in the Earth Sciences category, plus your comment about how your friends perceive wikipedia to be "anti-Christian" tells me that you are in a discussion about the age of the earth.

If so, then the first thing you should understand is that radiocarbon dating is NOT used for long-term dating of things like fossils or rocks, much less the age of the earth. Radiocarbon dating has a limited range of about 60,000 years (because of the short half-life of carbon-14). This really confuses creationists because they think this is something the scientists are keeping secret. I.e. creationists have this bizarre assumption that when scientists give the age of fossils or rocks, or say that the the earth is 4.6 billion years old, this is based on carbon dating, and so "exposing" the limited range of radiocarbon dating is a "fatal" blow to evolution.

The fact is that scientists have always known (since its discovery in 1949) what the range radiocarbon dating is, and that's precisely why they use *different* methods of *radiometric* dating (NOT radiocarbon dating) for establishing the age of fossils, rocks, meteors, or the age of the earth.

Answer 2

Well with anything it isn't perfect but as with all scientific concepts its been tested and tested and retested and retested. A lot of different scientist got the same answers over and over. It seems to be a rather reliable dating technique for rocks, fossils, and artifacts that aren't extremely old (less than 50000 years).

http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/carbon-dating.htm

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/cardat.html

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/dating/radio_carbon.html

http://archserve.id.ucsb.edu/Anth3/Courseware/Chronology/08_Radiocarbon_Dating.html

Close minded people are close minded because they don't open their minds. Ever. So that's the way they are going to most likely stay.

There is doubt in every scientific process because nothing is perfect. If universities don't have reliable material then who does? Also, if you scroll down on that site they ask you if you know Jesus, so it is a Christian based website, so maybe that's why its casting doubt???? Most Christian perspective websites (like this one http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html) will be biased to the contrary because fundamentalists don't believe in an Earth much older than 10,000 years. And they're not going to start.

I am a Christian and I will tell you that carbon dating is reliable and we use it. There's a Christian perspective.

Maybe you need some new friends.

Answer 3

There are some problems with it but it is reliable because the radioactive half life of an isotope is extremely reliable timescale. The difficulties come in measuring the isotopes accurately and interpreting them. The vast number of isotopic studies which are confirmed by other methods, generally less accurate meaures, tends to confirm the isotopic dating methods. Take for example, isotopic dating of basalts that spread from a mid ocean ridge. We have a good idea of the rate of spread and can estimate the age of the basalt from the distance to the ridge. Isotopic dating techniques confirm the suspected age and rate of spread. The same sort of things are seen in carbon. Tree ring studies demonstrate a very well known time scale that can be confirmed with carbon dating.

Answer 4

Believe it or not, wikipedia has a very detailed explanation on why carbon dating works in earth's atmosphere. It also chronicles the development of it and provides examples using mathematics and physics that would be difficult to dispute.

Here's the link that can get you started...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating

Let me know what you think of this link. You will also find extensive references and additional links there.

Good luck!!

Answer 5

the problem isn't the fact that carbon dating is accurate, the problem is that you are trying to convince fanatics. hard core Christians, like hard core Muslims, can be extremely hard headed once they get a thought in their minds that they believe is right. the problem with fanatics is that they don't compromise, and unless you have serious powers of persuasion, you wont change their minds no matter how much evidence you show them. personally i believe that god, science, and magic can coexist.

Answer 6

Your "friends" sound like the kind of folks that might still be dubious about gravity, too!

It's not your job to try to instill common sense when there is none there!

Answer 7

http://www.nearingzero.net/screen_res/nz337.jpg

See, the results are "unconditional"!