Errors in carbon 14 dating


05-Nov-2014 06:25

I just find it odd that every couple of weeks it seems like we find something that we never thought could have existed in that "time frame".

If you ask me they are feeding us # to keep the $$ coming in.

a reply to: Operation Black Rose I also have to think lab techniques have become better since the 1960's and 70's because of issues like this.

The science on radiocarbon dating is good, execution is the weak link.

This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th-century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read." (Anthropological Journal of Canada 1981) (working of notes I made, will go back to read entire articles and papers) carbon dating is not the only dating method used, it's just the most popular/easy to understand i think there are over a dozen dating methods, here straight from good old wikipedia Radiocarbon dating - for dating organic materials Dendrochronology - for dating trees, and objects made from wood, but also very important for calibrating radiocarbon dates Thermoluminescence dating - for dating inorganic material including ceramics Optically stimulated luminescence or optical dating for archaeological applications Potassium–argon dating - for dating fossilized hominid remains there are many more of course.

"The lower leg lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY, while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY." (Natural History 1949) 'Living mollusk shell were carbon dated as being 2,300 years old.' (Science 1963) 'A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1,300 years ago' (Antarctic Journal 1971) "One part of Dima (a baby frozen mammoth) was 40,000, another part was 26,000 and the 'wood immediately around the carcass' was 9-10,000." (Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 1975) 'Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old.' (Science 1984) "The two Colorado Creek, AK mammoths had radiocarbon ages of 22,850 ±670 and 16,150 ±230 years respectively." (Quaternary Research 1992) "One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years old and another part at 44,000." (Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 1975) And one of my favorite extracts."No matter how 'useful' it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results.There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates.Other dating methods are much more reliable to detect ages much older. Try to give us some sources that are a little less than 30 years old.

originally posted by: Operation Black Rose (Natural History 1949) (Science 1963) (Antarctic Journal 1971) (Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 1975) (Science 1984) (Quaternary Research 1992) (Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 1975) (Anthropological Journal of Canada 1981) a reply to: Operation Black Rose Well besides the fact that literally EVERY one of your sources are all old papers, published over 30 years ago, carbon-14 dating isn't even the only radiometric dating method being used.

Radiometric Dating - Modern Dating Methods Also, carbon-14 dating only goes out to about 60,000 years.



On the day of the announcement, the stock price of Inter Active Corp—the parent site of online dating behemoths —dropped by more than two per cent. Over the past two decades, the Internet has become a fixture of the modern-day romance plot.… continue reading »


Read more

Also, with strangers who may or may not be wearing clothes.… continue reading »


Read more

Everyone has different tastes, so it's a good idea to check out multiple opinions!… continue reading »


Read more

The deeply private Foster only came out publicly in a rambling, heartfelt speech at the 2013 Golden Globe Awards, where she accepted a lifetime achievement award.… continue reading »


Read more