Carbon dating unreliable

Rated 3.83/5 based on 810 customer reviews

The creation rate of C14 (and so the proportion in the atmosphere) depends on the suns activity - so a lot of dates which assumed a constant rate are known to be wrong.We can now calibrate this out by looking at C14 in tree rings of a known age - but the charge of "C14 dates are wrong" is used by nutters (sorry creationists) either deliberately or in ignorance.And one thing that the young Earth creationists need to explain if they're going to be down on radiometric dating--why do all subterranean pieces of dead organic matter have lower relative abundances of Carbon-14 than ones exposed to the atmosphere?What is their proposed mechanism for these abundances changing?By measuring the ratio of the radio isotope to non-radioactive carbon, the amount of carbon-14 decay can be worked out, thereby giving an age for the specimen in question.But that assumes that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere was constant — any variation would speed up or slow down the clock.

carbon dating unreliable-44

carbon dating unreliable-58

Since the 1960s, scientists have started accounting for the variations by calibrating the clock against the known ages of tree rings.It's difficult to tell what is being asked here.This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form.Archaeologists vehemently disagree over the effects changing climate and competition from recently arriving humans had on the Neanderthals' demise.The more accurate carbon clock should yield better dates for any overlap of humans and Neanderthals, as well as for determining how climate changes influenced the extinction of Neanderthals.

Leave a Reply