Carbon-14 dating Errors

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: OperationBlackRose

Typically the only ones who have issues with carbon dating are creationists.

Or anyone that can see errors in it.

As far as I understand it, by Martin Kamen and Sam Ruben discovered Carbon 14. Sorry if I don't use 'correct scientific terms'. Carbon 14 is in our atmosphere, plants and water take it in, living animal eat and drink it, and then we take that carbon 14 into our bodies.

Here is our first problem. If I drink more Carbon 14 rich water, and eat more Carbon 14 rich plant-life, I will accumulate more C-14 into my body, which in turn will give an older Radio-Carbon-Date. This is also true with someone who has lived 100 years, and someone who died in their early 20s. They measure the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere, and compare it with the amount in the object being dated, calculation the amount of half-lifes.

But they assume that every thing they are dating had the same amount of C-14 in them when they died. Another assumption is that the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere back then was the same as today.

But a big problem is that the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere is still on the rise. So in short, there is no constant in the calculations, only variables that change every single day.

Dating something is akin to polling a bunch of guesses that have inaccuracies built in......

a reply to: OperationBlackRose

Do you not know how percentages work? Carbon-14 works on half-lifes. A half-life is the time it takes for the TOTAL amount of remaining carbon in the object to have decayed by 50% or one half. So the amount of carbon you consumed throughout your life is irrelevant. Half of it will remain 5700 years from when you die.

originally posted by: Maxpower0001
Regardless, it's a flawed method and many scientists agree. The main problem is you have no definitive standard to base your time line off of. If I'm in my kitchen filling up a bucket and you walk in 2 minutes into it or 10 the level will be different but you would never be able to pin point when I started. I could have started 2 years prior or 20 seconds prior to you showing up. a reply to: moebius

That analogy doesn't hold up. Radiocarbon dating does not work using total amounts. Rather, the radiocarbon dating method measures the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12. Scientists can calibrate their results using a variety of methods including measuring tree rings and studying ice cores.

a reply to: OperationBlackRose

This post makes a lot of fallacious claims without anything to support them. Do you realize how ridiculous and disingenuous it looks when you try to dispute science but do so with nothing more than hyperbolic conjecture? If you're going to dispute the science, as someone who's degree is in anthropology , I applaud that. Seriously. It's why in science we utilize the peer review process, so that everything is on display and can be dissected for errors. However, in this instance, with this particular post, if you want to dispute the science the onus lies with you to provide citations(preferably ones from the last couple of decades) that support your claims of eating more 14 C rich foods(huh?!?!) adds more 14c to the organism skewing the dating data. Can you support that notion? Or the one that atmospheric 14C flux can not be accounted for? Because they can. That information presents itself in the numerous ice core samples taken. Ice core samples only go back a bit over 100 thousand years but that's fine as 14 c dating has an absolute max range going back to 60,000 years and myself and many others are Leary of anything over 45-50KYA but that's an entirely different thread. I'm more than happy to discuss and debate your premise if you can demonstrate citations and what lead you to this conclusion.

Your thread is just crazy talk because they have now figured out to not date something that is living or something where the date is known. This process works best when it can not be argued against in thier minds. Dating methoeds have evolved to the point that they know how to cover their tracks.

a reply to: deadeyedick

And another ignorant rant from the peanut gallery. Research simply isn't your forte is it? 10 minutes in google scholar can demonstrate a legitimate response to every one if the OP's concerns. But why do the work and learn something when it's easier to wallow in the ignorance that makes an anachronistic Bronze Age shepherds fairy takes so appealing eh?

a reply to: peter vlar

i did learn some of the new decption tech. in the responses here that is used to undermine the truth that is being hidden from us. All is not a loss. My comments point out the logical evolution of the lie called modern dating tech. I will tell you what i will look further into it if you can show me some examples of modern dating test done on subjects like the op presented. Right now it seems that the practise of dating known objects is now avoided. I could be wrong and any expert could point me to the results.


nevermind cause one claiming to be jesus just showed up in the religious forum. it looks like the whole science vs religion debate is over and science lost.

a reply to: OperationBlackRoseGood thread and something well worth considering, though you will find the research hard to find on neutrino potentials with carbon dating assumptions, reason being, of course, it would upset everything that's been assumed in archeology, but in the medical field and physics, as well. This is a very good story, I think, and here's a snippet of it:

t's a mystery that presented itself unexpectedly: The radioactive decay of some elements sitting quietly in laboratories on Earth seemed to be influenced by activities inside the sun, 93 million miles away.

Is this possible?

Researchers from Stanford and Purdue University believe it is. But their explanation of how it happens opens the door to yet another mystery.

There is even an outside chance that this unexpected effect is brought about by a previously unknown particle emitted by the sun. "That would be truly remarkable," said Peter Sturrock, Stanford professor emeritus of applied physics and an expert on the inner workings of the sun.

The whole story can be found HEREand it's well worth reading….
It's truly an amazing thing to consider and would def. upset and affect everything we now assume and have interpreted even about history…
regards,
tetra

a reply to: OperationBlackRose
the reservoir effect

The source of the 2,300-year-old radiocarbon date (Keith and Anderson 1963, discussed by Strahler 1987, 156-157), has been abused and misused to discredit radiocarbon dating. The article discussed the potential errors that the presence of "dead carbon" would introduce into the dating of mollusks. For example, carbon dioxide in the water can partially come from Paleozoic limestone, which lacks carbon-14. As a result, the carbon dioxide in the water is deficient in carbon-14 relative to the atmosphere, and mollusks living in the water build shells that give apparent dates older than they really are. This is a type of "reservoir effect."

More at the site

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: OperationBlackRose

, as someone who's degree is in anthropology , I applaud that.

So you're an anthropologist? then you should know about much about human fossils, Homo rhodesiensis, Homo neanderthalensis and all other hominin species, right? Or is that more paleoanthropology?

a reply to: OperationBlackRose

Its technically paleo anthropology but my area of focus was on Neanderthal and they were the subject of the thesis I started but had to put off due to limitations as cost factors with DNA sequencing in the late 90's. a lot of stuff I was working on at the time has led to my vindication because of new sequencing techniques. things I could only postulate and hypothesislikely on are now accepted facts. I don't work in my field as a result of injuries and other issues related to my military service but I try my best to keep up to date and will likely get off my ass and finish grad school in the next few years now that all my kids are in school and I've got time on my hands. Actually going down to Tulum and a couple of other Mayan sites in 3 weeks to kind of get a feel for things again and try to get my sea legs back so to speak. I like to think I know a lot about the subjects you mention and if I don't I will straight out admit it and if I think I know but am not completely I have resources to double check so I'm always open to a dialogue when its with an interested party as opposed to someome looking to dismiss the information out of hand and get off on trolling me as does happen more often than one would think.

a reply to: peter vlar

Do you know that Homo rhodesiensis (Broken Hill Man) was dated as being between 300,000 and 125,000 years old?

The problem with anthropology and paleontology is that if someone is doing his/her thesis or doctoral dissertation on a specific fossil, he/she will work with casts or remakes, not the real fossil remains. And most of the remakes of remakes. Very few people are ever allowed to see the originals, let alone study them.

Broken Hill Man is one of those fossils. But, when you do get the rare opportunity to study the original, you will find one very interesting fact, something that you will not notice when studying casts or remakes. He was shot, in the head, by a bullet form a gun...

I am pretty sure there was no guns 300 000 years ago...

a reply to: OperationBlackRose

I'm always interested in seeing things like that, do you have a citation for HR with a bullet hole? Personally, I've worked with actual HSN remains and their genetic material but I can't speak for all grad programs. It depends/varies from location to location as well as budgets. In undergrad however, yes, it was most always casts of skulls and post cranial remains. Its because there are a lot of students and very limited recovered remains not because anyone is trying to pull a fast one as well ad the need for proper preservation for further study.

ETA just did a quick search and found some good pictures.theres no way its a bullet hole though. How many people do you think survive bullet wounds to the parietal lobe? The reason I know this individual survived the cause of this anomaly is that there is a very distinct healing calcification. It looks far more like a healed trepanation and the only person I can find who seems to insist that it is a bullet wound is David Hatcher Childress which doesn't exactly lend much credence to the claim in my personal opinion. The skull is certainly interesting, though for other reasons. It seems to have some interesting archaic features along with more modern features as well. I would suspect that it is the result of H. Erectus admixture with H. Heidelbergensis but I'm going off of 2D photos and not a cast or original. If I had access to a cast I could give a much better answer but from what I am seeing it doesn't appear to be the result of being shot in modern times with modern weapons and the age of the remains mean that 14c dating had nothing to do with discerning the age anyway.

a reply to: peter vlar

“When a skull is struck by a relatively low-velocity projectile – such as an arrow, or spear – it produces what are known as radial cracks or striations; that is, minute hairline fractures running away from the place of impact,” wrote The Shields Gazelle. “As there were no radial fractures on the Neanderthal skull, it was unanimously concluded that the projectile must have had a far, far greater velocity than an arrow or spear.”

"David Hatcher Childress, a German forensics expert made an even more radical conclusion – “the cranial damage to Rhodesian man’s skull could not have been caused by anything but a bullet”

www.ancient-origins.net...#!bEu0ac

If you are open minded, maybe go read this
www.jackcuozzo.com...

quote]originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Quadrivium

No, how about you enlighten me.

You said that "carbon 14 dating is only good out to 60,000 years. We know that it is full of errors because it is only good out to 60,000 years.
Meaning, that we can actually look around us in the "here and now" and see a portion of that 60000 year span. We can see the proof that it is inaccurate.
With that in mind, lets look at your next statement. "Other dating methods are MUCH MORE RELIABLE to detect ages much older".
How do you know they are much more reliable? The farther you go back, the harder it is to say how accurate the test is. We have no point of reference, nothing to compare it to other than mere assumptions.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: OperationBlackRose



Also, carbon-14 dating only goes out to about 60,000 years.

And does that mean that if you can carbon date something, that it is less that 60 000 years old?

What about Tyrannosaurus Rex? it was dated, maybe not C-14 dated, but dated and widely excepted that Tyrannosaurus Rex lived over 60 million years ago. But they are still today finding living T-Rex blood cells and marrow. How can they find that when it was dated by "much more reliable" methods to be so old?

The problem is that you assume the Geologic Time Scale is correct. Each dinosaur or hominid fits into a specific time era. If it is dated, and the result does not correspond with the Time Scale, you assume it is wrong.

"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately."

The big truth is that if scientists admit that a hominid was shot by a gun, humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time, or just that someone saw a living trilobite, the entire Geologic Time Scale becomes invalid, and more that 300 years of work was to be placed back into the "Redo" pile.

a reply to: OperationBlackRose

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: OperationBlackRose

Same dumb creationist arguments repeated ad-nauseum. The motto of this site is DENY ignorance, not embrace it.

originally posted by: Quadrivium


You said that "carbon 14 dating is only good out to 60,000 years. We know that it is full of errors because it is only good out to 60,000 years.
Meaning, that we can actually look around us in the "here and now" and see a portion of that 60000 year span. We can see the proof that it is inaccurate.

And what exactly is the "proof" we see demonstrating the inaccuracy of the dating method? Simply saying that its inaccurate because it is only able to go back approximately 60KYA isn't anywhere close to demonstrating the truth of the statement.

With that in mind, lets look at your next statement. "Other dating methods are MUCH MORE RELIABLE to detect ages much older".
How do you know they are much more reliable? The farther you go back, the harder it is to say how accurate the test is. We have no point of reference, nothing to compare it to other than mere assumptions.

Taking the words out of context much? The implication is that other methods are more reliable for dating items OLDER THAN 60KYA. just a tad bit different. You claim there is no point of reference therefore there is no guarantee of church. This is pure poppycock. The point of reference is a measurable, co stunt rate of decay. For the same reason 14C is not useful for items older than 60 KYA(limitations based on the known half life of 14C), other radiological elements with much longer half life's are accurate within an acceptable margin of error. Certainly Rubidium-Strontium dating for example is based on the fact that Rubidium(87Rb) with its half life of 48.8 bn years, decays into Strontium(87Sr) at a constant, predictable and measurable rate. Now certainly its not going to give you an exact calendar date of March 16, of some specific year. It gives us a very close ball park range with an accepted margin of error. The age of rocks can be determined by the ratios of 87Rb to 87Sr. Its not brain surgery, its a fairly easy process to grasp if one is bothered to do some reading.