Hi Ichiban,
I don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but creationists not only argue against the accuracy of
14C dating, they also argue for it. For example, the RATE group (a creationist dating group) argues that
14C dating is so accurate that they can date coal accurately to 50,000 years.
IchiBan writes:
Here is a source from the NDT Resource Center so you cant reject it right off as 'creationist lies'
Let me give you a little information that your source left out and you can decide for yourself whether they're lying.
NDT Resource Center writes:
The word "estimates" is used because there is a significant amount of uncertainty in these measurements.
If by "significant amount of uncertainty" they mean 5-10% for cases where there are no sample problems, then they are correct. But if they mean hundreds of percent of error as in something dated to 50,000 years old is actually 5,000 years old then they're incorrect.
Each sample type has specific problems associated with its use for dating purposes, including contamination and special environmental effects.
This is true. It is common for samples to present challenges, and the radiocarbon dating industry has developed a wide variety of approaches for dealing with this problem. For example, post-discovery contamination can be handled by placing a newly discovered sample in a sample container along with something known to have no carbon contamination. The sample and the carbon-sterile item are both dated, and any non-zero date for carbon-sterile item must be due to contamination and can be subtracted out. Rather than telling you about the techniques science has developed to address problems like contamination and then going on to question how this was done, they just chose not to tell you about it.
First, as mentioned previously, the proportions of C-14 in the atmosphere in historic times is unknown. The C-14:C-12 atmospheric ratio is known to vary over time and it is not at all certain that the curve is well behaved.
This was true at one time back when Libby first developed the process, but what your source doesn't tell you is that science has worked hard to rectify this, and we now have
14C profiles for the atmosphere going back the necessary 50,000 years. Rather than telling you that science has addressed this problem and then going on to question how this was done, they just chose not to tell you about it.
Complicating things further, various plants have differing abilities to exclude significant proportions of the C-14 in their intake. This varies with environmental conditions as well. The varying rates at which C-14 is excluded in plants also means that the apparent age of a living animal may be affected by an animals diet. An animal that ingested plants with relatively low C-14 proportions would be dated older than their true age.
It is true that this was once a problem, but your article doesn't mention that scientists have developed correction approaches that require measuring the
13C concentration. Rather than telling you about
13C-based corrections and then going on to question the effectiveness, they just chose not to tell you about it.
Were they lying? You decide.
--Percy
™ Version 4.2
(1)