Errors in carbon 14 dating game dating guys play


The correctness of the method depends greatly on the condition that in the last 40 or 50 thousand years the quantity of water in the hydrosphere (and carbon diluted in it) has not substantially changed. The method depends also on the condition that during the same period of time the influx of cosmic rays or energy particles coming from the stars and the sun has not suffered substantial variations.

To check on the method before applying it on various historical and paleontological material, Libby chose material of Egyptian archaeology, under the assumption that no other historical material from over 2,000 years ago is so secure as to its absolute dating.

Carbon-14 dating of potsherd from ancient people’s clay vessels is commonly used to determine the age of a Stone Age settlement.

But this may method may well be fraught with errors.

There’s probably no need to rewrite the history books, but it’s likely that they contain some incorrectly dated excavation sites, Associate Professor Felix Riede told Aarhus University’s newsletter This is due to the fact that fish contain less of the radioactive substance Carbon 14 if they have lived in hard water.

Hard water contains high levels of calcium carbonate. However, depending on ocean water circulation, fish and other living creatures can incorporate 'older' carbonate (with less carbon-14) into their bodies.

Offering in 1952 his new radiocarbon method for calculating the age of organic material (the time interval since the plant or the animal died), W. Libby clearly saw the limitations of the method and the conditions under which his theoretical figures would be valid: A.

Carbon 14 is used for this example:, which was put out by Dr. is presently only 1/3 of the way to an equilibrium value which will be reached in 30,000 years. Knowing how faulty creationist "facts" can be, let's do a little research of our own.It turns out that the widely-used Carbon-14 dating method may be up to 2,000 years off the mark.”We had not expected to see an effect of 2,000 years.The discovery has some fairly frightening implications because it’s crucial to archaeology to have steady fixation points in the dating work.This argument was popularized by Henry Morris (1974, p.164), who used some calculations done in 1968 by Melvin Cook to get the 10,000-year figure. Whitelaw, using a greater ratio of carbon-14 production to decay, concluded that only 5000 years passed since carbon-14 started forming in the atmosphere!The argument may be compared to filling a barrel which has numerous small holes in its sides.When objects of the Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom of Egypt yielded carbon dates that appeared roughly comparable with the historical dates, Libby made his method known.With initial large margin of error and anything that did not square with expectation, judged as “contaminated,” the method appeared to work and was hailed as completely reliablejust as the atomic clock is reliableand this nobody doubted.This nullifies the carbon-14 method as well as demonstrating that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. One suspects that the scientific world would not be using the carbon-14 method if it were so obviously flawed.Could it be that the whole scientific community has missed this point, or is it another case of creationist daydreaming?As we pointed out in these two articles, radiometric dates are based on known rates of radioactivity, a phenomenon that is rooted in fundamental laws of physics and follows simple mathematical formulas.Dating schemes based on rates of radioactivity have been refined and scrutinized for several decades.

You must have an account to comment. Please register or login here!