This is what my born again Christian friend tries to explain to me everytime we talk about evolution. In the past I've held my ground quite firmly on this topic, but as of recently he has made some claims from some "scientific journals" that carbon dating may not be as accurate as thought, and that it is misleading. I have a hard time believing anything he really says about this, but my question comes down to this, how accurate is carbon dating and how sure are we it works? When I was at primary school I learned that you could tell the age of a tree by counting the rings. A slightly more refined version of that lets us verify carbon dating for something like 10, years. Elite Engineer - Note that it's hard to use logic and reason to argue someone out of a position at which they arrived using neither.
Is Carbon Dating Accurate?
Carbon Dating is false! - Organic Chemistry - Science Forums
According to 3 tests carried out by Dr. Giulio Fanti in , the Shroud of Turin is between 1, and 2, years old. Dating of the cloth has been surrounded by controversy since , when a Carbon 14 test dated it to the 13th century, prompting a flood of articles proclaiming it a fake. Now, most scientists and scholars consider the results of this test worthless due to sampling issues see Section II here. This result prompted an increase in research and generated new data coming from four new testing methods see Section III here. In addition to the new dating tests, there are also three types of external evidence indicating 1st century origin see section IV here.
ERRORS ARE FEARED IN CARBON DATING
Before his work, the tree-ring sequence of the sequoias had been worked out back to BC. What is your response? Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation.
When news is announced on the discovery of an archaeological find, we often hear about how the age of the sample was determined using radiocarbon dating, otherwise simply known as carbon dating. Deemed the gold standard of archaeology, the method was developed in the late s and is based on the idea that radiocarbon carbon 14 is being constantly created in the atmosphere by cosmic rays which then combine with atmospheric oxygen to form CO2, which is then incorporated into plants during photosynthesis. When the plant or animal that consumed the foliage dies, it stops exchanging carbon with the environment and from there on in it is simply a case of measuring how much carbon 14 has been emitted, giving its age. But new research conducted by Cornell University could be about to throw the field of archaeology on its head with the claim that there could be a number of inaccuracies in commonly accepted carbon dating standards. If this is true, then many of our established historical timelines are thrown into question, potentially needing a re-write of the history books.