What do 14C, 1/2 life, 5370 years, and 50,000 years have in common? Well a pretty interesting math problem for Carbon 14 Dating. Now, let me begin by saying that I have very little knowledge of the full spectrum of science. I know a few theories and facts and patterns, but by and large I am no science major. My math skills are also very poor. I can do up to basic Algebra. Once I learned about “i”maginary numbers, well I had had enough.
All this to say that I read a very interesting artical today that my brother linked in a comment on this site regarding Carbon 14 dating and how it works. Wow. I think it would be a very interesting read for anyone who only knows the basic concept of Carbon 14 dating. It might just rock your socks.
Read it Here:
The Carbon 14 Myth
30 August 2008 at 4:51 pm
I do know about Carbon Dating.
I would never convince myself to become a “Young Earther” but the way we date fossils is so crappy it makes me lean that way sometimes.
And dinosaurs. wow! wow! let me just say I’ve learned a lot. and dang
1 September 2008 at 10:18 pm
Ok…you are aware that there are numerous dating methods out there, right?
1 September 2008 at 11:26 pm
airtightnoodle,
Awesome, but that is irrelevant to the post. My discussion isn’t other dating methods, but rather regarding an article which talks about the unreliability of Carbon 14 Dating. This isn’t to say that I’m not interesting in learning the other dating methods out there, but it is to say that I wanted to shed light on the most common dating method brought up in discussions of dating fossils and such.
Blessings,
Michael
2 September 2008 at 4:26 am
I’m sorry you feel it is irrelevant, but honestly, I don’t know what kind of people you are having these discussions with, because no one I know frequently brings up carbon dating when discussing fossils. Carbon dating, as you know, is only accurate when dating things no older than approximately 50000 years old. I think in general when discussing fossils people are usually (though not always, of course) more interested in things that are much older than that.
My point is simply that if someone refers to carbon dating in reference to the evolution of anything that took place longer than 50000 years ago, then they are saying something very ignorant. However, such an ignorant statement doesn’t invalidate evolutionary theory in the least.
2 September 2008 at 7:57 am
airtightnoodle,
Really? I hear it often in discussions regarding the age of the earth, evolution, the use in dating fossils which proving how old life on earth is, etc. It isn’t rare -for me anyway- to hear how wonderful Carbon 14 dating is.
However, you are right. The highly inaccurate nature of 14C dating does not invalidate the evolutionary theory in the slightest. I would hope, however, that it would challenge those who rely on 14C dating in their arguments to reinvestigate the facts. In respect these are no different than those who are “Christian” yet know little to nothing about their own “faith.”
Blessings,
Michael
2 September 2008 at 4:08 pm
What other dating methods do people use when discussing fossils?