In the case of old samples with almost no C, even the tiniest bit of contamination would make the sample appear far younger. Always remember that C dating is not a magical process; it is a measure of C and the age interpretation depends on a few assumptions. It's also worth noting that C is only useful for a bit more than , years. The vast majority of fossils aren't dated using C at all, but other radioisotopes.
Science has several very reasonable explanations for levels of modern carbon in very old samples. Although this satisfies the scientist, who for all sorts of other reasons quite reasonably assumes that these samples are truly old, it leaves enormous scope for the creationists to reinforce their followers' faith that the earth is young. I still feel that some definitive experiments in this area would be useful to test the various rational explanations for the c14 anomaly.
I can see though that science has problems taking on creationists because of the perceived risk of lending credibility to their ideas. Bit of a dilemma there. Also as soon as one creationist idea is exploded, they just move on to another area where uncertainty in the science offers them the opportunity to mislead. That begs the question that an anomaly even exists. What does exist are limits to the applicability of 14 C dating techniques.
Create an account or sign in to comment
Several of the test results touted by creationists were definitive experiments to assess those limitations. There is no arguing with young earth creationists. They are immune to logic and evidence. Broadly speaking I agree with you.
Half-life and carbon dating
But, reading the experts' explanations of the "anomaly" read to me, as a non-expert in this field, like perfectly reasonable explanations as long as you accept the "old earth" explanation. If you don't, such dismissive arguments as 'the extra C14 could be due to uranium decay' leave enough wriggle room uncertainty for the creationist to thrive in. You're right though, I'm probably being naive in thnking they will be convinced.
- russian jewish dating website.
- good dating websites yahoo;
- mobile dating site in canada.
- Navigation menu;
- dating website nz.
- Half-life and carbon dating (video) | Nuclei | Khan Academy?
- how to write a creative online dating message?
Even so, it is always good when creationists have been casting doubt in some area to be able to completely explode their reasoning. I'm still looking for a reference, in a refereed scientific journal, confirming the finding of carbon14, in any amount, in diamonds or coal. I suspect, but haven't been able to confirm, that the reports of carbon 14 in these substances have been made up out of whole cloth by Young Earth Creationists, but I am loath to make this claim, absent evidence that reports of these findings haven't been published in any journals that aren't connected with such organizations as the Institute for Creation Science.
I further think that it is the fact that the claims are conscpicuously bogus that has accounted for their not having been responded to. After all, to my limited understanding, carbon 14 is associated with organic processes, and, right off the bat, I find myself wondering why it would be found in any allotrope of carbon, which is an inorganic element. Can anyone out there either confirm or disconfirm my suspicions? You need to know that I will not be much impressed by anything coming from the ICR or any similar group.
Well one of two things could be happening, the carbon 14 signature is reset every time the rock melts because the carbon 14 disperses among the liquid rock, Also neutron bombardment from uranium decay could possibly have an impact, but you'd also have other trace elements that tell the tale of this neutron contamination. Since the discussion is specifically about Carbon14 in coal I am unclear as to why you would be talking about molten rock.
Coal is not known for its inclination to melt. Since Carbon14 dating is only relevant to dating organic matter I am unclear as to why you would be talking about resetting the Carbon14 clock in molten rock. Molten rock is not organic material friendly. We all make mistakes. I made one in You need to be a member in order to leave a comment.
Sign up for a new account in our community. Already have an account? Radiocarbon dating can be used on samples of bone, cloth, wood and plant fibers. The half-life of a radioactive isotope describes the amount of time that it takes half of the isotope in a sample to decay. In the case of radiocarbon dating, the half-life of carbon 14 is 5, years.
This half life is a relatively small number, which means that carbon 14 dating is not particularly helpful for very recent deaths and deaths more than 50, years ago. After 5, years, the amount of carbon 14 left in the body is half of the original amount. If the amount of carbon 14 is halved every 5, years, it will not take very long to reach an amount that is too small to analyze.
ChemTeam: Half-life problems involving carbon
That, you know, maybe this guy will decay this second. And then nothing happens for a long time, a long time, and all of a sudden two more guys decay. And so, like everything in chemistry, and a lot of what we're starting to deal with in physics and quantum mechanics, everything is probabilistic. I mean, maybe if we really got in detail on the configurations of the nucleus, maybe we could get a little bit better in terms of our probabilities, but we don't know what's going on inside of the nucleus, so all we can do is ascribe some probabilities to something reacting.
Now you could say, OK, what's the probability of any given molecule reacting in one second? Or you could define it that way. But we're used to dealing with things on the macro level, on dealing with, you know, huge amounts of atoms. So what we do is we come up with terms that help us get our head around this. And one of those terms is the term half-life. And let me erase this stuff down here. So I have a description, and we're going to hopefully get an intuition of what half-life means. So I wrote a decay reaction right here, where you have carbon It decays into nitrogen And we could just do a little bit of review.
You go from six protons to seven protons. Your mass changes the same. So one of the neutrons must have turned into a proton and that is what happened. And it does that by releasing an electron, which is also call a beta particle. We could have written this as minus 1 charge.
It does have some mass, but they write zero. This is kind of notation. So this is beta decay. Beta decay, this is just a review. But the way we think about half-life is, people have studied carbon and they said, look, if I start off with 10 grams-- if I have just a block of carbon that's 10 grams. If I wait carbon's half-life-- this is a specific isotope of carbon.
Remember, isotopes, if there's carbon, can come in 12, with an atomic mass number of 12, or with 14, or I mean, there's different isotopes of different elements. And the atomic number defines the carbon, because it has six protons. Carbon has six protons. But they have a different number of neutrons. So when you have the same element with varying number of neutrons, that's an isotope. So the carbon version, or this isotope of carbon, let's say we start with 10 grams. If they say that it's half-life is 5, years, that means that if on day one we start off with 10 grams of pure carbon, after 5, years, half of this will have turned into nitrogen, by beta decay.
- Problem with Carbon 14 radiometric dating - Physics - Science Forums.
- online dating site for teenagers.