Lets say i find a piece of bone that is thousands of years old. I crush up that bone and eat the dust. My body absorbs that bone and it becomes within my body's carbon. Would carbon dating date me to be thousands of years old, even though I am currently alive?
Oh, I know, it would date me to be 50,000 years old because carbon dating has been proven to have major inaccuracies.
2007-08-16 08:26:21 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
lol
carbon dating is fallable. and this question is tooo funny!
2007-08-16 08:31:55 · answer #1 · answered by Thumbs down me now 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Carbon dating measures a certain type of carbon molecule that is present in all living things. Once the living organism dies, the carbon is broken down. Ergo, the older something of a biological nature is, the less of this carbon molecule is present. If you ate the bone dust and then "carbon dated" yourself, you would be carbon dating your own body, which is still alive. It would measure 0 years since death.
Try reading--it's your friend.
2007-08-16 08:36:50 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Carbon dating is not the best technique for certain types of materials, but is highly accurate for other kinds of materials. In any case, we rely on carbon dating far less now than ever before since there are almost two dozen other radiometric dating methods, some of which are even more accurate than carbon dating, which can be used together to corroborate one another. In this way we are now able to determine the ages of substances with far greater accuracy than ever before. Really, making references to the shortcomings of early carbon dating techniques is a bit like condemning automobiles because of the shortcomings of the model T Ford. But that's the level of scientific knowledge many people have. Especially people whose objective is to attack science and its discoveries.
2007-08-16 08:42:41 · answer #3 · answered by PaulCyp 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No.
Carbon dating is only good back about 50,000 years. Past that, all the radio active carbon has gone out of a sample.
So, if this bone were older than 50,000 years, there would be no more c-14 in it.
If the bone were more recent, it would still have less c-14 than you have in your tissues and bone, and could not alter it anyway. It is not cumulative in that regard.
.
2007-08-16 08:35:22 · answer #4 · answered by Hogie 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I would expect most of the crushed up bone would pass through you. A small part would be absorbed, and your body may show up as a little older than what you really are, but not much. The catch is, part of your body has to be removed to be tested. Are you volunteering to carry out this experiment?
And carbon dating, when used according to the protocols and proper practices, is fairly reliable. It's only when it's used inappropriately that it gives inaccurate results. It seems to me that this happens when non-scientists try to use this tool to justify their opinions and beliefs, or discredit those that they don't believe in.
2007-08-16 08:36:56 · answer #5 · answered by Ralfcoder 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Carbon dating can't be used to date something that was alive during the past 300 years. Our placing of "old carbon" into the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels makes recent material look old.
2007-08-16 08:48:46 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
A) Carbon dating is only useful up to something like 60,000 years in the past. Scientists don't use carbon past that point and, if you're talking about young earth crap, there's no point in mentioning carbon dating for that reason.
B) Your scenario is ludicrous as you missed a few steps as to what happens to that bone once you eat it up.
C) Can you prove how carbon dating is innacurate? Because I guarantee it isn't.
2007-08-16 08:32:30 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Depends. Do they dig you up in two weeks or two hundred thousand years? They'd use Potassium dating for fresh samples, plus there are other ways. Carbon dating is only useful for things long, long, long, long, dead. And guess what, in 200,000 years, no one will give a **** anyway. We'd be too busy fighting the floating brainmen from Polaris.
2007-08-16 08:33:03 · answer #8 · answered by Mike 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Metabolizing the carbon would reset the clock.
Carbon dating has been shown to be highly accurate within its half life of 50,000 years. Only when samples were contaminated have erroneous results been obtained. Or maybe you would like to argue with atomic theory?
2007-08-16 08:34:48 · answer #9 · answered by Dendronbat Crocoduck 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
meh, carbon dating is not the only method used to date things.
but in the reality of things, if it held MAJOR inaccuracies, im sure scientists looking for fact wouldnt use it. science isnt about making up things u know.
2007-08-16 08:29:26 · answer #10 · answered by Chippy v1.0.0.3b 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
If it has major inaccuracies, then why would scientists still use it? I think it would be more important to ask if it is as inaccurate as the creationists claim.
Furthermore, why the heck are you asking this in the R&S section?
2007-08-16 08:28:43 · answer #11 · answered by Incoherent Fool 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋