Carbon Dating Is A Useful And Accurate Tool

“Carbon dating, like many radiometric dating techniques, is insufficient.”

Radiocarbon dating has been repeatedly tested, demonstrating its accuracy.

“First, it assumes that the half-life of Carbon 14 is a constant.”

Do you have any evidence to the contrary? The experimentations done over many years show the half-life of Carbon-14 to be roughly the same every time.

“It also assumes that the ratio of Carbon-14 to Carbon-12 in the atmosphere was the same in the past as it is today.”

Again, do you have any evidence to the contrary? Even if what you say is entirely true, do you think the scientific community would be blind to such an obvious disadvantage?

“Finally, all dating is under the assumption that the organism did not live in an environment with an unusual amount of Carbon-14.”

Isochron methods can detect contamination and, to a certain extent, correct for it. Even so, most ages are determined from multiple mineral and rock samples, not just one. This gives a consistent date within one and three percent. It is extremely unlikely that contamination would affect all samples by the same amount. Also, Geochronologists don’t use weathered samples for dating. This lowers the likeliness of incorrect results even more. Is there a possibility the results could still be incorrect? Yes. Of course. But you have to admit, making the assumption that every single sample taken and dated is wrong due to contamination, for reasons unexplained, is a much larger leap than accepting the dates given.

“Also, it can only be used to date things that were once livng…”

I’m sorry, but who told you this? Your Mathematics teacher who’s apparently a geochronologist now? I have to say, he’s not a very good one then if even I can debunk his claims.

“…and contained carbon (hence Carbon dating).”

Name a type of mineral or sediment that doesn’t contain Carbon.

It seems to me that you make many more assumptions than you claim radiocarbon dating does. You falsely assume the assumptions of Carbon-14 dating are wrong, with no evidential indication that they are.

Hizashi

19 Nov 2008 05:51

Comment

“Carbon dating, like many radiometric dating techniques, is insufficient.”

Radiocarbon dating has been repeatedly tested, demonstrating its accuracy.

“First, it assumes that the half-life of Carbon 14 is a constant.”

Do you have any evidence to the contrary? The experimentations done over many years show the half-life of Carbon-14 to be roughly the same every time.

“It also assumes that the ratio of Carbon-14 to Carbon-12 in the atmosphere was the same in the past as it is today.”

Again, do you have any evidence to the contrary? Even if what you say is entirely true, do you think the scientific community would be blind to such an obvious disadvantage?

“Finally, all dating is under the assumption that the organism did not live in an environment with an unusual amount of Carbon-14.”

Isochron methods can detect contamination and, to a certain extent, correct for it. Even so, most ages are determined from multiple mineral and rock samples, not just one. This gives a consistent date within one and three percent. It is extremely unlikely that contamination would affect all samples by the same amount. Also, Geochronologists don’t use weathered samples for dating. This lowers the likeliness of incorrect results even more. Is there a possibility the results could still be incorrect? Yes. Of course. But you have to admit, making the assumption that every single sample taken and dated is wrong due to contamination, for reasons unexplained, is a much larger leap than accepting the dates given.

“Also, it can only be used to date things that were once livng…”

I’m sorry, but who told you this? Your Mathematics teacher who’s apparently a geochronologist now? I have to say, he’s not a very good one then if even I can debunk his claims.

“…and contained carbon (hence Carbon dating).”

Name a type of mineral or sediment that doesn’t contain Carbon.

It seems to me that you make many more assumptions than you claim radiocarbon dating does. You falsely assume the assumptions of Carbon-14 dating are wrong, with no evidential indication that they are.