|
|
Subject:
Radiocarbon dating innacuracies
Category: Science > Earth Sciences Asked by: rafikki-ga List Price: $8.00 |
Posted:
10 Jan 2005 11:17 PST
Expires: 09 Feb 2005 11:17 PST Question ID: 455091 |
I recently heard about a study that was done wherein organic material was buried for a few weeks or months, and when it was retrieved and tested by radiometric methods, was dated hundreds of thousands of years old. This was just hearsay, so the details may be inaccurate, and I am uncertain if this was done recently or not, but I'm leaning toward recently. At any rate, I need a link to the article, or to know where I can locate it (if it exists), and it would also be helpful to know if it was peer-reviewed and anything else that might help me determine how factual it is, though that is not a requirement for this question. |
|
There is no answer at this time. |
|
Subject:
Re: Radiocarbon dating innacuracies
From: kriswrite-ga on 10 Jan 2005 13:07 PST |
There are lots of scientists who debate the accuracy of radiometric dating methods (most of their arguments may be found on Creationist websites and books); however, I was unable to find the specific article you were seeking. If you'd like more general information, just let me know. Kriswrite |
Subject:
Re: Radiocarbon dating innacuracies
From: johnintampa-ga on 10 Jan 2005 13:26 PST |
Radiocarbon dating is only used to date things less than 50,000 years old. Therefore the date could not have been reported to be "hundreds of thousands of years old". Also, nothing is perfect, and if someone made a mistake and contaminated the test in some way, it does not invalidate the entire concept of radiocarbon dating. |
Subject:
Re: Radiocarbon dating innacuracies
From: mczagros-ga on 11 Jan 2005 20:29 PST |
This is a standard fable of the anti-evolutionists screed. Like everything else they put out, it is erroneous. http://www.c14dating.com/corr.html gives a number of reasons why a particular organic material may date incorrectly: Contamination by limestone of certain freshwater shellfish: the limestone has no radioactive C and and will bias attempts to determine the date of the shell. Oceanic differential: The C14 ratio in the ocean lags the atmosphere by about 400 years due to slow diffusion of atmospheric C into the water. Pollution: dumping large quantities of coal pollution into the atmosphere as a result of the industrial revolution has upset the usual balance. The Bomb: Increase radioactivity since Hiroshima has upset the usual balance. More here: http://archaeology.about.com/cs/datingtechniques/a/timing_3.htm and here: http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/c14_results.php |
If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by emailing us at answers-support@google.com with the question ID listed above. Thank you. |
Search Google Answers for |
Google Home - Answers FAQ - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy |