Carbon Dating Question

Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 3 months ago to Science
73 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

I'm highly skeptical when it comes to carbon dating. I'm hoping that some of the folks here can lessen or remove some of my skepticism.

My contention: Carbon dating is a measurement tool that has a flawed foundation and cannot be reliably counted on to accurately determine age.

Fact: All elements in existence come from stars, expelled at various stages in a stars death throes.

If the "birth" of elements being measured with carbon dating are unknown how can anyone determine half-life or set anything more than a best guess based on other equally flawed readings?

Even if we were to actually destroy an element in its entirety and conclusive establish its death, we still could not determine its half-life or its birth-date.

I know that there are scientists and science types here. What am I missing?

** this is not a faith or religious oriented discussion, lets not make it one.


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Posted by lrshultis 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Same here longevity wise, I will be 86 if I make it with my stents well past their lifetimes by then.
    I just like any new knowledge. I used to consider myself a nexialist: "here is the formal definition, coined by science fiction author A. E. Van Vogt. Nexialist: One skilled in the science of joining together in an orderly fashion the knowledge of one field of learning with that of other fields." The nexialist character in one of his novels would find causes of deep mysteries in the star travel novels. Trouble was that they had an A is not-A flavor from general semantics.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Actually, I was thinking of this, "...Mal’ta genome [from 24,000 years ago]..., which shows a possible Siberian conduit for mixture between the ancestors of today’s Europeans and indigenous New World populations." (John Hawks' blog)

    (Mal'ta is in Siberia; not the Malta in the Med.)

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by lrshultis 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Cosmic rays are tens to hundreds of times more energetic than solar particles which may produce as small amount of 14C but nowhere near near most of it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I wouldnt call it wallowing. You have certain interests and thats fine. I wish sometimes I had the free time and money to engage in more inventing of new things, but that part of my life is probably over in this environment
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I do not disagree with your concern. But I still enjoy wallowing in the myriad genetic details of paleoanthropology...just for fun.

    Jan, wallowing
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I have maybe 10 years more to live if I am lucky. None of that will make any different to me, nor probably to you either as these things take long periods to have any effect.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I am just so concerened with day to day living and surviving this election of Hillary that I just dont have time for much in the way of intellectual pursuits. I understand that its important for you, and thats OK.

    I can foresee much turmoil in the next 4 years with the inflated currency and regulations under a Hillary administration that will just make it very difficult for older folks like me to survive.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by lrshultis 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Good until your last paragraph. 14C abundance changes somewhat erratically as in the 700s with odd solar activity and during the nuclear test period which changed in the atmosphere and ocean but those ratios are not those of the periodic table. As for the periodic table, no way will that change from those changes any more than any averaging does for atomic mass when needed for a mixture of isotopes, all depends upon the mixture.

    I sure would like to see that reference to the planets. All planet, including Earth's, rotational rates change for various reasons, such as mass distribution, arrangement of other system bodies, and even being clobbered by large masses.
    That grand solar minimum possibility is at present an educated guess by some solar scientists.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Well, it is important to my life in an intellectual sense. Paleoanthropology fascinates me. And the knowledge of how we got to where we are, both mentally and physically, can send reverberations into the modern world.

    Example: a tribe of Indians would not release a skull to archeologists for examination. The feared - correctly - that when the archeologists did genetic testing on the bones they would determine that the Indians were not the 'original settlers' of their land, but had replaced an earlier group of different genetic heritage. This impacts the sense that we 'owe' American Indians for the land we took from them by force...the truth turns out to be that the current Indians occupying the land took it from someone else by force as well.

    So, if you are looking only at a practical use for such knowledge, knowing these things can effect our modern lives. Aside from that, though, intellectual pursuits are worthwhile for their own sake.

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men. Roald Dahl

    And this subject isn't nonsense. You'll make yourself crazy focusing on whats happening to and in this country today.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by lrshultis 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Wastes of time from what? If you mean money from taxation, maybe so.
    So the the middle of a 100,000 year glaciation which was one of the longer series glaciations which followed the series of 40,000 year glaciations which may give evidence for more such glaciations is not important enough to study? That last glaciation was responsible for the demise of the Neanderthal and the large mammals like the mastodon, etc.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ProfChuck 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Correct. I simplified the process but the issue is that 14C6 is continuously created in the upper atmosphere.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Its of theoretical interest for sure. I am just saying that in OUR lifetimes its just not very high on the immediate things to do
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hot_Black_Desiato 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I would tend to disagree with at statement.

    Like rings on a tree, earth ice core samples have layers and rings that can actually be counted. Based on the counting of rings. "And the counting shall be three, not two...not one....but three...", could not help that, but counting them can take you back hundreds of thousands of years.

    Based on physical counting of layers, and the empirical measurements of frozen compounds, they can determine temperatures. Tthe APICA graphs http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Prec... , generated by such core samples proves out eath goes through 100,000 cooling and warming cycles, and today we are on the peak of one of those cooling cycles.

    Knowing with reasonable certainty some things dating back hundreds of thousands of years can, if applied help us understand what to expect in the future.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo