Can carbon dating be trusted sex dating in kentwood michigan
If the methods don’t work on rocks of known age, it is most unreasonable to trust that they work on rocks of unknown age.It is far more rational to trust the Word of the God who created the world, knows its history perfectly, and has revealed sufficient information in the Bible for us to understand that history and the age of the creation.For example, Ferdinand Christian Baur contended that John’s Gospel was not written until about AD 160.This, if true, would not only undermine John’s Gospel, it would cast suspicion on the entire New Testament as well.In such settings, charcoal ages cannot always be trusted and collagen is unavailable.Calcined bone can be a viable alternative medium in these situations but it has rarely been exploited in the Americas.
Various elements are used for dating different time periods; ones with relatively short half-lives like carbon-14 (or C) are useful for dating once-living objects (since they include atmospheric carbon from when they were alive) from about ten to fifty thousand years old. Longer-lived isotopes provide dating information for much older times.
I have read studies, papers and more, showing that Carbon-Dating can have an error rate of 200% Here are just a few extracts from science journal that got my attention.
"The lower leg lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY, while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY." (Natural History 1949) 'Living mollusk shell were carbon dated as being 2,300 years old.' (Science 1963) 'A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1,300 years ago' (Antarctic Journal 1971) "One part of Dima (a baby frozen mammoth) was 40,000, another part was 26,000 and the 'wood immediately around the carcass' was 9-10,000." (Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 1975) 'Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old.' (Science 1984) "The two Colorado Creek, AK mammoths had radiocarbon ages of 22,850 ±670 and 16,150 ±230 years respectively." (Quaternary Research 1992) "One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years old and another part at 44,000." (Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 1975) And one of my favorite extracts.
originally posted by: inert a reply to: Operation Black Rose I also have to think lab techniques have become better since the 1960's and 70's because of issues like this.
Radiocarbon dating using charcoal and bone collagen, two standards of archaeological chronology, can be difficult to impossible in environments where natural burning is common and bone does not preserve well.