Research Finds Carbon Dating Flawed

Ask an older scientist

As radioactive carbon has only a half life of 5730 years and the ratio of stable carbon to radioactive carbon (at the present level of production in the atmosphere) is 10⁹.

http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Radiography/Physics/carbondating.htm

So with today sophisticated methods of analysis (laser excitation) it is possible to go back 60.000 years.

At that age there are only 10^-12 radioactive carbon atoms in a carbon sample.

So please tell us how to go back another factor of 3000 in time?

It is also well known that there are a lot of disturbing factors: variation in radiation from sun and stars and galaxies, burning old carbon, atmospheric nuclear tests, variation in earths magnetic field, more I don't know but likely to exist.

There is no necessity to go this far back with carbon dating as there are many more radioactive dating methods based mostly on the relation of two elements.

RHABE

We have known it was flawed for at least 40 years - ever since they found a living oyster to be 10,000 years old.

Well, that beat this guy...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96tzi_the_Iceman

...and this guy, too...

http://aprn.org/2008/05/23/sealaska-searches-for-descendants-of-10000-year-old-man/

...but here's one still in the running...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Year_Old_Man

...no, wait, they both shuffled off this mortal coil already, didn't they? Gone off to no-sequel city, alas!

I've never heard of this 10,000 years old living oyster.

Can you give us some reference ?

I did however, hear they said something about wormholes to alternative, parallel universes and realities. Does this mean physics don't work, or that science is non valid?

Each and every wacko may declare this or that and say it's in the name of science. To be truly scientific it needs to adhere to some criteria, some of which are:

1. It has to be in accordance with everything else we positively know;

2. It has to be able to produce predictions which can be positively observed, proven or dis-proven - this criterion is also known as the "Karl Popper Refutability Principle";

3. It can never postulate itself "Theory Of Everything" - because it will then have to explain everything, in accordance to the observable and measurable;

4. It cannot be expressed in it's own symbolic language, but instead it has to be expressed in a language which will enable us to associate it to the rest of our proven positive knowledge;

In short, not every fruit claiming an absurdity, is a proof that science doesn't work. moreover, the fact that we could develop the technology which enables us to communicate via keyboards, mouses and GUI screens, is.

I'm not saying in any way that so you claim, but a rare episode of a 10,000 year-old living oyster is not some proof that carbon dating is invalid. Proportions must be taken into account.

I for instance, managed to notice that only dating methods ranging over the biblical claim of five thousand years, tend to annoy creationists.

Is it only my imagination? Is Carbon 14 is fine for creationists, having the accuracy for measurement below 5000 years, but not other isotopes, used for measuring longer periods?

Is it that because the Neanderthal vanished 40,000 years ago, that we should believe that it's fossilised bones are imaginary?

And the most important bottom line of it all:

Is science, proper science, good, honest science there to serve our belief systems, or is it there simply to measure the world, the observable, measurable world?

Does this mean physics don't work, or that science is non valid?

Science by definition is try or try again

I found reference to 400 years old, but the only 10000 year reference I got was for midden material - ie dead.

Hi Yuval,

"Can you give us some reference ?"

No, it was something I read many years ago. I believe in science, but carbon dating is not science. Your four rules prove that conclusively.

S

What is your conclusive "carbon dating is not science" bit about ?

Radiocarbon dating is perfectly scientific, theoretically, methodically and practically, and it has a vast number of cross-reference data to back it up, and unlike your statement above, it is based on rigid fact, not wishful fiction

Don't insist to display ignorance, it doesn't do you any credit

Adrian Rubin, Haifa, Israel

"What is your conclusive "carbon dating is not science" bit about ?"

Besides the fact that it violates all four of Yuval rules, carbon-dating presupposes that you know how much carbon is there at the start, and you don't. As far as Yuval's statement that there has been agreement since the 70's, Google "carbon dating flawed", and read the first 10 responses, and you'll have an answer to both assertions.

1. "...Besides the fact that it violates all four of Yuval rules, carbon-dating presupposes that you know how much carbon is there at the start, and you don't..."

- Would you care to explain how it violates these rules, or you're satisfied with a simple, vague negation of any argument you don't care to like?

2. These are not "Yuval rules", It's most common and basic scientific methodology, which I tend to suspect you're not familiar with. So, google for those if you will.

3. "...As far as Yuval's statement that there has been agreement since the 70's, Google "carbon dating flawed", and read the first 10 responses, and you'll have an answer to both assertions..." - You can also google for "reason is flawed" or better yet, google for "the sun revolves around earth" and see what you come up with.

What's with you man ?

I though you were a tad more serious than that

Sorry. The 10,000 year old oyster can't come to the phone right now. He's in the middle of a shuffleboard game at Sun City Retirement Community, in Arizona.

However, he has sent his dear friend the 7,000 year old whelk to say a few words...

He never said the oyster meant carbon dating was invalid. he said it meant it was flawed.

In dating methods, flawed is invalid.

If you ask two different people what's the time, and they give you different answers, you cannot trust both, because you have no reference point, which, if you had, you wouldn't need to ask in the first place.

Just because it has limits doesn't mean it is totally incorrect or worthless. So it can't go back more than 150,000,000 years, other methods can be used. I suppose those who say the world was created 6,000 years ago, because they counted the generations in the Bible will be gleeful. However, if they are then they are saying that then they are saying that God is tricking us or lying, which is not possible. Science is the study of God's creation, so the 13C/12C ratio is just what it is, a limited method of dating. And light is not changing speed over time. The universe is just as we perceive it to be.

Tag,

Although I am not a strict 6000 year creationist, I do believe the world as we know it came to be through a Divine plan. I'll let others quibble about sequences of time. It (the Bible) does say, after all, that in the beginning the world was without form and void. What exactly that means is not clear or explained. So there is room for all kinds of things to have happened prior to this world as we know it.

That said, I find it quite amusing to see another theory shot full of holes. In another thread in a discussion about dark matter and energy it came to light (they think) that, of all there is in the universe, we can only understand about 4% of it. I personally think that is an exaggeration. Why is it, when we have been proven wrong time after time, we think we know enough to teach our children these 'theories' as fact? Is there no room for a supernatural God working supernatural effects?

Hi Shadetree,

"coming to light" -regardless if dark matter or Earth or any "secret and unexplainable miracle" - is only coming to limited explainability by our limited brain and our limited sensory natural equipment and artificial amplifiers of eyes, ears...

Until now we try to use science to give a natural interpretation - although we are far away of many needed solutions.

Who can calculate the behaviour of water and ice (or any other material) from its atomic constituents and quantum and/or other theories?

I was told 2002 that the biggest computer can calculate the interaction of 8, may be 9 atoms, but this is not "matter", "material" as we know it with density, melting point, strength...

So for a long time coming we will not be able to explain many everyday effects. We can measure these and tell at school: ice has this peculiar minimum in density at 4°C, but this is not real understanding.

This I would clearly categorise as: we cannot calculate today but may be tomorrow.

So where are the supernatural divine effects? Until now I found only one: the existence of matter, the universe.

Do you know more?

RHABE

"health warning: These posts may contain traces of nut."

Bravo

Is there no room for a supernatural God working supernatural effects?

Of course there is. But it is more fun like this!

We humans like to venture in to the jungle and if me make it through (sinning is also part of it on every level) then proclaim victory along with the discovery of the 'fountain of youth' - think about that!

At the moment we are still tossing the coin, which way to go? Not to mention, how far it is?

How's that grab ya?

Your own reference disagrees with what you said, and what about the thread you are responding to? Here's another:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

I wouldn't call that agreement, would you? You can be related to Homo if you want to. I've always thought you were a homo anyway.

The "Mitochondrial Eve" project researches the earliest human lineage and genealogy as far as Homo Sapiens-Sapiens is concerned, particularly the Cro-Mgnon sub species which co-existed with the Neanderthal Man between 120,000 BC to 40,000 BC.

This is very recent in Homo lineage, which dates back to 2 million if Homo Erectus is to be considered your earliest, or 3.9 million , if Australopithecus (Also bipedal - the famous Lucy found in Afar in the seventies) is to be considered your earliest, as I tend to consider it, because of their advanced tool making capacity which indicates higher cortex functioning, and indirect evidence of symbolic language and application.

My relation to homo is not exclusive. I also relate to the humble radish and turnip and feel no shame in that. Our evolution started with viruses and bacteria, and we all share common sequences we may call "Genes" in our individual DNA strands.

Just think of it for a moment: our multi-cellular bodies, justly referred to as "The Crown Of Creation" are a coalition of highly specialised uni-cellular units which multiply by division, so much so we usually would refer to it as "Bacteria", only that when they cooperate in a multi-cellular body such as ours, they are refereed to as "tissue". Why? - because in their nucleus, they contain the same DNA, to include their individual blueprint, but also all the other blueprints of the myriad other uni-cellular units, cells, such as hair cells, dermis cells, nerve cells, etc.

As a matter of fact, the humble Mitochondria, which produces the ADP molecule, essential to our bodily survival and without which, we wouldn't survive a mere 20 minutes, lives and multiplies inside our cells, but is an alien, in the sense that it has it's own foreign DNA. Why doesn't the immune system attack it ?

Symbiosis. Our multi-cellular body, is a colony of specialised bacteria coalised in tight symbiosis, to form, function and reproduce as such, via sex.

The individual cells, just to remind you, reproduce by division. They remember and keep their ancestral ways, only to maintain us, the bigger, higher order colony, with our own ways, integrated linkage and defense systems, typical of much lower order of entropy, and higher order and sophistication.

Going back enough in number of generation, we all have a common ancestor.

The choice to ignore this wonderful glory of creation is ours.

I choose not to, because I admire this creation.

To me it's Divine.

"...produces the ADP molecule..." - Should be:

"...produces the ATP molecule..." of course.

ADP is it's counterpart in the plant world. ATP (Adenosine triphosphate) and ADP (Adenosine diphosphate) are energy-packages essential for maintenance of cellular metabolism.

Apologies for this confusion in terms used

I'm not sure that you're confused., The conversion of ADP to ATP in mitrochondria by aerobic respiration in Animals is part of the Krebs cycle which is taught nowadays in high school... In my day it was memorization Task of doom in college freshman biology...

my 2 cents

milo

If so, then I would dare think you're about my age...

StandardsGuy you wrote: "I've always thought you were a homo anyway" - ? ? ?

Where is your dignity ? Is that your level of argumentation ?

Sorry, it had to be said.

A.R

They won't learn. Why should they? They're thick as hell that's why.

That's right. Why should they?

As the saying goes - 'The less we know the less we forget, the less we forget the more we know' - so why study?

I think this aptly applies to most creationists because sadly, most of them are fanatics.

What's more, I told my own daughter, "There'll be no carbon dating while you're living under my roof!!!"

What about silicon? They can make things brittle like carbon.