Research Finds Carbon Dating Flawed

w1z4rd

w1z4rd

Karmic Sangoma
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
52,146
Reaction score
8,340
Location
127.0.0.1
"New research funded by the National Science Foundation at the University of Miami is showing that carbon dating (the 13C/12C ratio used to infer age) in the ocean can only be trusted up to 150 million years ago. From the primary researcher, 'This study is a major step in terms of rethinking how geologists interpret variations in the 13C/12C ratio throughout Earth's history. If the approach does not work over the past 10 million years, then why would it work during older time periods? As a consequence of our findings, changes in 13C/12C records need to be reevaluated, conclusions regarding changes in the reservoirs of carbon will have to be reassessed, and some of the widely-held ideas regarding the elevation of CO2 during specific periods of the Earth's geological history will have to be adjusted.' While this research doesn't necessarily throw carbon dating out the window, it should cause people to rethink so many theories about early life that revolved around ages of sediment in the oceans."
Click to expand...

I bolded the important part before the religious fantatics in the forum take this the wrong way by not reading correctly.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080910104202.htm
 
How did they discover they are wrong and how can they be sure of anything they do not have a "test" speciment for? these are just questions, not me saying it IS wrong.
 
w1z4rd said:
I bolded the important part before the religious fantatics in the forum take this the wrong way by not reading correctly.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080910104202.htm
Click to expand...
This is old news, and has been disputed for ages anyway. Carbon dating is flawed in more ways than just this. Try any of the pro-evo sites where this is discussed. Carbon dating is used to dupe the masses - the more scientific community uses other methods (also flawed, btw, but not as bad accordding to scientists) to dupe themselves. :D

Yes, I am biased. So are you. Face it, accept it - we view the facts through coloured glasses - be they humanist or creationist-coloured. :)
 
w1z4rd said:
Oh dear.
Click to expand...

What did you expect? This is a very imprecise field... but we all know they are using the best tools they have. Don't worry they are refining them all the time. I'm sorry they are not 100% accurate for you. maybe in a few million years.
 
There are different types of carbon dating...and they differ in accuracy depending on the situation.

Any kind of sweeping statement either for or against carbon dating is pointless.
 
Raithlin said:
This is old news, and has been disputed for ages anyway. Carbon dating is flawed in more ways than just this. Try any of the pro-evo sites where this is discussed. Carbon dating is used to dupe the masses - the more scientific community uses other methods (also flawed, btw, but not as bad accordding to scientists) to dupe themselves. :D

Yes, I am biased. So are you. Face it, accept it - we view the facts through coloured glasses - be they humanist or creationist-coloured. :)
Click to expand...

Well said.

HavocXphere said:
There are different types of carbon dating...and they differ in accuracy depending on the situation.

Any kind of sweeping statement either for or against carbon dating is pointless.
Click to expand...

How did they discover they are wrong and how can they be sure of anything they do not have a "test" speciment for? these are just questions, not me saying it IS wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X