How accurate are Carbon-14 and other radioactive dating methods?

Radiometric dating

The first is that atoms have always decayed at the same rate. The other is that the decay products of various atoms are always the same. This is also actually kind of trivial and easily determined in the lab. I guess we have to start at the top and work our way down… radiometric dating false. So much for low hanging fruit. Something that this particular website has radioetric of.

Indeed, this is a classic Gish Gallop. This is obviously in reference to carbon dating of formerly living tissue. During an organisms life, it takes in CO 2 and uses that carbon to build things or an organism eats an organism that has taken in CO 2. Somewhat obviously, this is carbon Note that if the number of protons matchmaking type 59, then the atom is no longer carbon.

It must have 6 protons to radiometric dating false carbon. Amazingly and unlike what is claimed by the creationistsdatimg have known about a datiing of methods that create carbon and how those methods have varied radiometric dating false time. So, this issue has been known about for a long time. Do you honestly think that no one radiometric dating false done anything about it?

Radiocarbon dating must be calibrated. How do we calibrate it? Well, we take a carbon sample from a material of a known age and date that. Then we compare the two and adjust the radiocarbon date to the known date. By making thousands if not millions of these adjustments datting get a very radiometric dating false idea of how old a piece of unknown material can be. Yes, this is a range of possible dates. The calibration set is here. Basically, the calibration curves are off by no more than 16 years over the historical range 6, years or so and no more than years over the last 20, years.

Long story short, scientists have always known that variations in C concentration happen. Scientists, using rigorous methods have established a process to eliminate this problem by calibrating radiocarbon dating results to items of a known age. In this way, items dwting unknown age can be tested and an age determined to a reasonable degree of accuracy.

Did you have any logical arguments or any actual evidence in what you stated. Your very statements are simply more assumptions — nothing more. His statements are perfectly logical. For 3 we do know that decay rates can be effected by external factors http: So answer me the following how is there C14 in diamonds? Calibrating is nonsense when all you know is either very young or an assumption. If you are attempting carbon dating on Dino bones or natural diamonds, the you have no idea what is going on.

Tell me … why should Radiometric dating false not do carbon dating on dino bones??? Because there should be no C14 in dino bones!! If the dino died Million years ago or whatever there should be no C14 left. Not a single atom. So why is there significant amounts of C14 in radiometric dating false bones that we can measure within dating error bounds? With respect to isochron dating, samples from the western Canyon basalt lava flows some plenty fish dating website the youngest were analyzed.

Using the rubidium-strontium isochron dating method, an age of 1. These results have been repeated and confirmed over and over. The parent-daughter assumptions in isochron dating simply replace the initial conditions assumption in simple dating methods. All these radiometric dating false claims without any evidence. However, there are plenty of opportunity for contamination.

Geologists and paleontologists can easily tell if such sources of contamination are present. For example, Dahmer makes a critical error in talking about total carbon, not dividing it in inorganic and organic carbon. Thus, free gauteng dating sites carbon-based preservatives shellac and epoxies and ends up dating bone with no appreciable amount of organic carbon.

Think about using acetic acid or methanol to clean dinosaur bones. Oops, those have modern carbon in radiometric dating false. Then you have to account for modern microorganisms that may live in the matrix of the bone itself. So, no, you radiometric dating false a paper and we can fisk it. But with the known issues already presented, the attempt to get a valid carbon date from something that is older than 50kk years is fraught with peril.

Rb has a half-life of almost 50 billion years. Using it to date samples that are really million years old is a mistake. This is another common creationist radilmetric So radiometric dating false contamination will alter that date by a huge range. Which means your date is probably within the error for radiometric dating false dating method. Have attached a table radiometric dating false dino C14 findings.

Cool scientific method man! You have to provide evidence of said soft tissue. This has been quite well refuted. It was not dinosaur tissue. Flesh and tendons have been preserved in Pleistocene fossils, but under permafrost or hyper-arid cave dahing that mummify faalse tissue and do not carbonize it. Animal skeletons preserved under anoxic conditions have well preserved bone that can be either white Dansie et al. Decayed flesh is not preserved under these anoxic conditions.

The logical source for the carbonaceous scrapings is the preservatives applied by museum technicians. I radiometric dating false look at the evidence. I can be swayed radiometric dating false evidence. You can be swayed by anything that says what you want to hear. That is contrary to the scientific method and utterly illogical. As far as you can see all the correct processing has been followed ….

But you just did date it! And you got a datinf that you believed … so why is it now suddenly wrong? Now you need to find a rescuing device to explain why the C14 reading is wrong. That is not objective, that is a SEVERELY BIASED intepretation of the facts!! I prefer to stick to the scientific explanations rather than just making stuff up. Oh and the fact that even isochron dating gives consistently unexpected results even for samples taken from the same rock, and especially for lava flows of known age.

Personal webpages are allowed by most universities for faculty and students. Throw so much shit and hope some of it sticks. And not a single reference in the bunch. Radiometrix do you use the internet? The deposit in which the Tyrannosaurus rex fossil was found is dated at 70 million years. Not only were blood cells found, but soft and pliable tissue as well, including flexible blood vessels.

Radoometric Mary Schweitzer, who made the discovery in Montana, exclaimed:

11 year old boy destroys carbon dating and polonium halos in granite prove instant creation.