New calibration method for radiocarbon dating
by konceptual99 26 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Phizzy
Ah, but what you don't understand is that God, who can do anything, laid down all those layers just after the flood, and made it look as though there are many many thousands of layers that were layed down annually.
Just ask Bible believing literalists like our very own poster "Bioflex".
-
breakfast of champions
You would believe mud over god's word? How dare you!
-
nicolaou
Funny, I was just listening to a piece about this while I was working this morning. Download the latest 'Science in Action' podcast from the BBC website if you can . . .
-
moshe
here is a problem- contamination. If younger carbon 14 migrates down to the lower layers the results are skewed. I just read a book, After the Ice Age. that tells how they radiocarbon dated the preserved pollen grains in the sediment layers- this young to old C-14 contamination is mentioned in the book. I would like to see how they made sure the lower/older layers were not contaminated with younger C-14
-
james_woods
There is no "old" or "young" C-14 as measured in the test. The test is for the AMOUNT of C-14 in a given organic sample which is left at the time of the test. The amount of C-14 is fixed in living organic material by the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere, and decreases after the death of the organism at a fixed rate from then on by radioactive decay.
Here is what a basic Wikipedia description says about this test:
Radiocarbon dating (usually referred to as simply carbon dating) is a radiometric dating method that uses the naturally occurring radioisotopecarbon-14 ( 14 C ) to estimate the age of carbon-bearing materials up to about 58,000 to 62,000 years. [ 1 ] Raw, i.e., uncalibrated, radiocarbon ages are usually reported in radiocarbon years "Before Present" (BP), with "present" defined as CE 1950. Such raw ages can be calibrated to give calendar dates. One of the most frequent uses of radiocarbon dating is to estimate the age of organic remains from archaeological sites. When plants fix atmospheric carbon dioxide ( CO 2 ) into organic matter during photosynthesis they incorporate a quantity of 14 C that approximately matches the level of this isotope in the atmosphere. After plants die or they are consumed by other organisms (for example, by humans or other animals), the accumulation of 14 C fraction stops and the material declines at a fixed exponential rate due to the radioactive decay of 14 C . Comparing the remaining 14 C fraction of a sample to that expected from atmospheric 14 C allows the age of the sample to be estimated.
One thing to note is that it is only usable for very "new" samples (geologically speaking) - up to about 60,000 years. It is thus ridiculous for the Watchtower to claim that it is wrong to date the dinosaurs using this method (as they tried to do in the old Evolution book) - there are no carbon dinosaur samples to be had, and the dinosaurs lived many millions of years ago rather than a few thousand.
-
moshe
from my book-
Contamination happens in various ways. A bured specimen can absorb young carbon, if the water in overlaying fresh humus drains downward onto it; even stored specimens risk being contaminated if they are allowed to become moldy.
Now, if more radioactive carbon from a higher/younger layer migrates downward and mixes with the lower older sample, then the dates will be greatly skewed towards a younger age. Older C14 is less radioactive and it too can make a younger sample appear older, but due to differences in radiation amounts, old contamination does not cause as big of an error as young C14 contamination does.
-
oldlightnewshite
Finally we might get some clues as to what happened to the neanderthals. I think there must have been something other than human cannibalism/ugly neander chicks to blame. I bet they'll find a major factor in a climate event that was a tipping point.
Thanks for the info
-
james_woods
1. - How would it "migrate"? It is a solid, locked into the molecular structure of the sample.
But - if it did migrate - under some special circumstance -
2. - Wouldn't such migration (if we assume it went downward) just make the lower (older) specimens test younger? It would seemingly not explain any results that make specimens test older than they really are. (the more C-14, the younger the test result - the less C-14, the older)
Thus, the migration-error idea would not support the claims of the creationists who want to say that C-14 errors make samples appear older than they really are.
-
konceptual99
So Moshe, your suggestion is that the organic matter in a layer may absorb liquid drain down from above. The liquid will contain C14 levels that will give a younger age than the original material contained.
What results would such a scenario give in the lab? Would readings contain min/max/average levels?
Regardless, James is correct that the result is skewed to a younger age which is exactly the opposite of what staunch creationists want.