Is carbon dating really accurate

02-Sep-2016 07:58

They will argue that the clock was not reset if the age is too old, or that isotopes were selectively removed if the age turns out to be too young.

In the study on the Hawaii lava flow cited above, it was argued that entrapment of excessive amounts of argon gas had made the samples appear older than they were.

A further example from a lava flow off the coast of Hawaii shows similar discrepancies.

If dated with the carbon-14 method, the flow appears to be less than 17,000 years old, but dating with the potassium argon method gives dates of 160,000 to 43 million years.

You can help Amazing Discoveries reduce costs by upgrading or replacing your internet browser with one of the options below.

We thank you in advance for partnering with us in this small but significant way. All methods of radioactive dating rely on three assumptions that may not necessarily be true: It is assumed that the rate of decay has remained constant over time.

While there is no proof that the rates were different in the past than they are today, there is also no proof that they were the same.

Thus radioactive dating relies purely on assumptions.

is carbon dating really accurate-85

Scientists will reject theories about the age of the earth that do not conform to the norm.

Many examples from literature show that the zero-reset assumption is not always valid.

Volcanic ejecta of Mount Rangitoto (Auckland, New Zealand) was found to have a potassium-40 age of 485,000 years, yet trees buried within the volcanic material were dated with the carbon-14 method to be less than 300 years old.

Contamination is the usual uniformitarian dodge, but how can a diamond be contaminated with outside carbon? It can "read" something up to about 4500 years but then the accuracy drops off rapidly.

Furthermore, such young carbon-14 dates in “old” carbon are more the rule than the exception! There actually have been "readings" taken of live bones that said they were 1000s of years old.

Scientists will reject theories about the age of the earth that do not conform to the norm.

Many examples from literature show that the zero-reset assumption is not always valid.

Volcanic ejecta of Mount Rangitoto (Auckland, New Zealand) was found to have a potassium-40 age of 485,000 years, yet trees buried within the volcanic material were dated with the carbon-14 method to be less than 300 years old.

Contamination is the usual uniformitarian dodge, but how can a diamond be contaminated with outside carbon? It can "read" something up to about 4500 years but then the accuracy drops off rapidly.

Furthermore, such young carbon-14 dates in “old” carbon are more the rule than the exception! There actually have been "readings" taken of live bones that said they were 1000s of years old.

If a sample is older than 100,000 years, there should be no carbon-14 remaining.