How accurate is carbon dating? Re-copied from this morning?

Question

“The troubles of radiocarbon dating are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged and warnings are out that radiocarbon dating may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a “fix-it-as-we-go” approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise, then, that fully half the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half have come to be accepted.
“No matter how ‘useful’ it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th-century alchemy*, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read.

Robert E. Lee "Radiocarbon: ages in error" Anthropological Journal of Canada

Answer 1

Theo...........Even though the results prove to be not reliable, the non-belioevers will still use the numbers. There are so many mistaken ages with C-14, it's amazing anyone still uses it.

Answer 2

Regardless of what Mr. Lee states, radiocarbon dating is fairly accurate. Will it calculate down to the month/day? No. But within an acceptable variance, then yes it is accurate. We must realize that with the initial uses of carbon dating, it was assumed that the things have been constant throughout time. However, it must be realized that the levels of carbon - 14 have varied slightly throughout history, so there are some variances to the initial carbon levels, hence variances to the half-lives.
It is amazing that Christians point at this as proof that it is not accurate at all, but still follow a Bible which is nothing but fantasy (at the closest). The carbon dates will and can alter as the radiocarbon dating improves and more data is compiled to indicate carbon-14 levels throughout history. So of course the statement it is a fix as you go, since it continues to become more accurate as you go, and that the dates change with further testing. Amazingly that Christians are so quick to point that out, but according to your Bible, the earth is only 6,000 years old. So come on, join the 21st century and realize that with further improvements in technology and gathering data, that dates will change. However, did Mr. Lee also state that in reality the changing dates did not vary by thousand or tens of thousands of years? No, he did not, because the changes in dates did not vary by large numbers. Wow, talk about grasping at straws. Or is it that you are trying to take the attention away from the major flaws and fallacy of religion by trying to get people to focus on something else. Once again religion trying to save their revenue stream by illusion.

Answer 3

Those factors are taken into account when doing the dating. In some areas, C14 dating cannot even be used, so other methods need to be done to date the sample. Scientists are not idiots. They know about these things, and correct for them. If they cannot correct for them, then they cannot use the method for that sample. For example, the carbon that is dated in organic remains comes from the atmosphere, but the amount of C14 in the atmosphere changes over time. Scientists can use ice cores from Antarctica which have trapped C14 in the ice after snow falls over 100,000s of years to determine how much to correct for a sample's dates if the stratigraphy provides a rough estimate. Take into account also the multitude of other dating isotopic dating practices that are used to check and double check the date and you end up getting a really good idea of the time period, within a few years. Simple.

Answer 4

Busted!!! No creationist "research" has been published in standard peer-reviewed journals. All creationists' material either targets common audience or are published in dubious non-standard journals. Mr Lee claims to have been published in
Anthropological Journal of Canada. This is not the name of the journal put out by the Anthropological Society of Canada. You may wonder why he would try to confuse people about his credentials until you realize he is not a scientist. He is merely a writer for talkorigins and answersingenesis, 2 pro-creationism (thus anti-evolution) websites. Now for the flaws in his opinions (not a theory because he did not do any experiments, let alone follow the scientific method).
Radiocarbon dating can indeed yield bogus results if one applies it to inappropriate samples or in an incompetent fashion. Of course, the fact that radiocarbon dating can be misapplied does nothing to reduce its accuracy or scientific value when not misapplied. Or, to put it more simply "garbage in, garbage out."
and the generalization that if carbon dating can give inaccurate results then it always yields inaccurate results.
If I were you, I would ask myself why my church is deliberately trying to mislead me. Now go pick up an actual science book and stay away from the church based propaganda websites.

Answer 5

Interesting. You quote ONE PERSON's opinion, with no links, and no EVIDENCE to back up what he is saying.

Radiometric dating is VERY accurate if it is used within its limitations. A lot of the detractors of it quote instances when it was not used correctly, or when it was used on things that absorb radiation and thus give incredibly inaccurate readings. When these things were taken into account and the readings were taken again, they were VERY accurate. Just because one person says something isn't true doesn't mean that he is right, and in this instance he isn't. I wonder when this was even printed - it can't be recent and it definitely can't be considered scientifically accurate.

Btw: they didn't have a clue about radiometric dating in the 13th Century. It wasn't until the end of the 19th Century and the beginning of the 20th Century that they even started to understand radiation. Rutherford, Curie, etc., make what you are saying a total falsehood.

Add. - to "David V", above: excellent link - couldn't have said it better myself! - THANK YOU.

Answer 6

Radiocarbon dating may be wrong maybe it would be better to wait for the Television carbon dating to get the full picture.

Answer 7

Even if the earth is millions of years old, does your belief in a creating, creator God depend on a literal reading of the Bible? You can read all the articles you want in creationist "journals," but in the end you are basing your belief not on faith, but on a literal interpretation of scripture that in the end, just won't hold up. Faith must be based on something more, or your deluding yourself.

Answer 8

Ahhh. Like the carbon dating process that is used to test Greek New Testament manuscripts to see how old they are. There is a fight over English language Bible versions and it basically goes down to a battle over Greek manuscripts and how old they are. Funny stuff.

Answer 9

What does this have to do with Religion or Spirituality?

You'd be better served asking this in the Science section.

Answer 10

And the point is?
Oh, sorry it is another futile attempt at discrediting the ability to date objects more than 6000 years.

Answer 11

Actually, I looked that up, and that was published in CRSQ, or Creation Research Society Quarterly, not the Anthropological Society of Canada's magazine.

Also, the Anthropological Society of Canada's magazine is called, "Anthropologica," not "Anthropological Journal of Canada."

But copying from the "Answers in Genesis" website and calling it "Anthropological Journal of Canada" -- classic.