Why carbon dating is flawed rowupdating event not firing

All radioactive substances have these half-lives, and we know them to a pretty good precision.Obviously once you get very little of a substance (after about ~10 half lives, IIRC) it's not very useful for dating materials, but as I said, there are a lot of them and their useful periods overlap, so we have a lot of ways to check our numbers.They do it because they know that if the earth is more than 6,000-10,000 years old, it's absolutely game over for young-earth creationism and biblical literalism in general.They lie, twist and misrepresent the facts about radiometric dating (and wholly ignore the many other corroborating methods) that tell us the actual age of organic materials to preserve their foundational fantasy at all costs.If you find 25 grams, it's probably about 500 years old.

Carbon dating, incidentally, can also be (and has been) verified using still other methods, like counting tree rings and geological evidence.

You'd expect to find 100 grams of element A in a sample if it was brand new.

If you find 50 grams, the sample must be about 250 years old.

From what i have read, it's not about amount of some radioisotope, but about ratios: For example - when lava comes out of volcano, it contains any amount of uranium-234 (just example), but over time, some of this amount decays into thorium-230. Since you know that half of the uranium-234 decays into thorium-230 in ~80,000 years, you can easily compute the age of lava rock.source: R.

Dawkings's greatest show under sun (also: What is nice about method is that there are radioisotopes that decay with different speeds, so (i guess in some cases) you can cross-check - and the results always points to the same age (with some error of course)Sorry for my english :)Going off of your adjustment comment, it's also worth noting that carbon dating is not an exact science.

Leave a Reply