Carbon dating isn't reliable?

KJV

I was talking to a relative the other night who told me that PBS had a program on TV some weeks back, and they interviewed many reputable scientist who said that carbon dating doesn't work. Has anybody heard about this?

AlanF

The only ones who make that blanket claim are Young-Earth Creationists and others, like the JWs, who have a religious stake in keeping the dates of anything to do with mankind under about 6000 years.

Carbon dating, done properly, has been shown to be quite reliable. The watchword is "properly", because as with any indirect method of measuring anything, the appropriate assumptions about applicability of the method must be met. YECs tend to focus on the problematic areas where people, due to inexperience, have applied various dating methods improperly and come up with clearly erroneous results. It is those experiences that teach practioners how to properly apply their methods.

AlanF

Amazing

Hi KJV: AlanF is correct. Additionally, C14 dating is accurate and reliable to about 50,000 years and more ... when you approach 60,000 years, C14 has depleted by about 99.9% ... so that readings become very difficult. Other radioisotope measurements have to then be employed.

Also, on the PBS show you mention, what are some of the specific problems that the people have in their claim that C14 is unreliable? Knowing this will help in understanding if they have legitimate concerns, or are parroting YEC propaganda.

tyydyy

It's amazing how reliable Carbon Dating is for religious groups when it supports their point of view.

TimB

writerpen

What is carbon dating?

Xander

IIRC, carbon-14 is a radioactive element that pretty much saturates our environment. Living things breath it in (or eat it? Don't recall), and it becomes part of our bodies (bone structure, etc.) When you die, carbon-14 stops being added to your bones.

Since it is a radioactive element, we know exactly the rate at which it decays ('radioactive' by definition means an element that is unstable - it will eventually break down into other stable elements, such as lead, and the rate of 'decay' is constant). The trick then, is to get enough of a sample from skeletal remains to find out how far decayed the carbon-14 is. Once you know how far it has decayed, and you know the rate of decay, you know when the living thing died.

Kind of a simplified explanation, but there you go.

A fanatic is one who, upon losing sight of his goals, redoubles his efforts.
--George Santayana

Xander

Further, as to 'contamination'. Yes, it is possible. But, keep in mind, scientists are measuring how long it has been since carbon-14 was added to the skeleton (typically when the being died). If, say, rats or worms were gnawing on it 50,000 years later and left enough C-14 to cause problems, the remains would be 'contaminated'.

But, here is the rub - C-14 contamination will ALWAYS make something look YOUNGER than it is. Say a man died 10,000 years ago. 2,000 after his death, his skeleton is 'contaminated'. Now, a modern scientist doing C-14 dating on ONLY the contaminated part would think he died 8,000 years ago.

See the YEC problem? If C-14 dating indicates living organisms existed on Earth 40,000 ago, that means AT LEAST 40,000 ago - maybe longer. CERTAINLY not LESS.

A fanatic is one who, upon losing sight of his goals, redoubles his efforts.
--George Santayana

cosmo

Don't scientist also use oxygen dating?

Imbue

Tyydyy said:

It's amazing how reliable Carbon Dating is for religious groups when it supports their point of view.

So true, especially the WT.

Crazy is doing the same thing over and over again when it doesn't work.

writerpen

Thanks for the explanation Xander.

"Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!" - Negro spiritual

Carbon dating isn't reliable?

Share this