quote:
Originally posted by wwjd:
Carbon Dating: The Assumptions
Carbon Dating is one of many Radiometric Dating techniques. As such, it shares some of the controversial assumptions fundamental to Radiometric Dating, such as (i) a constant rate of decay, (ii) no loss or gain of parent or daughter elements during decay, and (iii) known amounts of daughter elements present at the beginning of decay. Carbon Dating is often confused with other radiometric techniques, which place the ages of inorganic material in the millions or billions of years. As shown above, Carbon Dating is only used to date organic matter and is unable to determine the age of anything exceeding 60,000 years old.
Now tell us w, do you really believe that geochronologists and archeologis,ts are unaware of these assumptions?
quote:
Carbon Dating: The Controversy
Carbon Dating is actually more controversial than other radiometric dating techniques, in that it makes an additional major assumption. In order for Carbon Dating to have any value, Carbon-14, produced in our outer atmosphere as Nitrogen-14 and changed into radioactive Carbon-14 by cosmic-ray bombardment, must be at equilibrium in our atmosphere. That is, the production rate must be equal to the decay rate. Based on the mathematics inherent in Libby's research, it takes approximately 30,000 years of Carbon-14 build up from a zero concentration level to reach this state of equilibrium. Recent studies indicate that Carbon-14 has not yet reached equilibrium in our atmosphere, thus indicating that the atmosphere is not yet 30,000 years old.
Utter nonsense, w, as long as the cosmic ray flux varies, the system will NEVER reach equilibrium.
quote:
Carbon Dating: The Use Of Dendrochronology
Carbon Dating advocates have turned to Dendrochronology (tree ring dating) to help solve the "equilibrium" dilemma. They claim that Dendrochronology allows them to determine past concentration levels of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere, by measuring the Carbon-14 to Carbon-12 ratios in tree rings. The problem is that no trees have been shown to exceed 4,500 years in age. The Methuselah Tree in Southern California has been called the oldest living tree, and it has been dated at approximately 4,500 years. Carbon Dating advocates use tree rings from dead trees thought to overlap the Methuselah Tree to mathematically determine ages exceeding 4,500 years. They determine whether a dead tree's age overlaps the Methuselah Tree's age by ring patterns, and then they assume that the dead trees are older through a comparison of ring patterns, carbon ratios, etc. There seems to be an illogical methodology here. To complicate matters, tree ring patterns are typically inconsistent. Even living trees can show dissimilar patterns caused by differing soil nutrients, direction of prevailing sunlight, fire history, distance to water sources, etc.
More nonsense, w, of course there are no LIVING trees over 4500 years old, but there are plenty of dead ones.
[quote]My
opinion based on what I've seen, read and heared, The Carbon Dating is incurrate on plastic or anything else for that matter.[/B][/QUOTE]
Your opinion is based on misinformation and misunderstanding. You have been deceived by your professional creationists...
™ Version 4.2