Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Science & MathematicsBiology · 6 months ago

What veritable evidence do we have that Carbon Dating is infallible? Were you around 170k years ago to verify something is 170k years old?

30 Answers

Relevance
  • John
    Lv 4
    6 months ago

    Nuclear fission. Carbon dating is only one tiny part of nuclear science.

    If carbon dating doesn't work neither does nuclear physics.

    And those nuclear weapons you have don't exist.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • Anonymous
    6 months ago

    We have sent back a couple time-travelers (chrononauts they're called) who volunteered themselves to go back in time. They left notes when they found that, indeed, we were right. :D

    • 6 months agoReport

      Chronauts is cooler

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • Tom
    Lv 7
    6 months ago

    Well, we know the decay rate of Carbon 14 It is a simple matter to measure how much is left. ---And it's only good for 50,000 years. Other techniques are used for older materials.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • Anonymous
    6 months ago

    Sorry to see your home schooling failed you. Carbon dating is simple physics. Furthermore, other dating methods yield the same result. For more detail, see the many answers you have already received.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • 6 months ago

    Veritable ??

    Carbon dating is physics and self verified Just not very accurate dating biologic remains. why other scientific methods are used to help pinpoint age. Carbon decay is quite accurate to a good 70,000 years.

    Spectrography has a margin of error in percentage, but decent dating to 50 million years.

    Paleontologist don't want a specimen destroyed just to learn an age

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • Anonymous
    6 months ago

    < What veritable evidence >

    Another home skooling success story

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 6 months ago

    What veritable evidence do we have that you meant verified when you wrote veritable? It is with misgivings that I pose this question because I have never actually seen you or talked to you, therefore I have no veritable evidence that you even exist.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 6 months ago

    First off, I wouldn't use the word "infallible". Scientists would seldom use that word as it implies dogmatic adherence.

    We know radiocarbon dating is reliable because it gives consistent results with other dating methods. It can also be used to accurately date historical objects with a known provenance.

    Of course no one is one hundred seventy thousand years old. That is a really stupid question. Are you a troll? Also, radiocarbon dating has an upper limit of about seventy thousand years; so it would not be useful dating a hundred seventy thousand years old object. We would use other methods to date such an object e.g. magnetostratigraphy, Potassium-Argon, luminescence, etc.

    One hundred seventy thousand years seems like an oddly specific number. Is there some object in particular you are talking about?

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 6 months ago

    I think you mean 'verifiable' evidence. It's based on certain assumptions, one of them requiring consistent levels of C14 in the atmosphere but if the flood of Noah's days is a historic event, that assumption only holds good up until the time after that global flood. Relying on a gas in the atmosphere, and consistent levels of absorption so as to work out its 'half-life' (decay), is not a sensible way to judge dates.

    With regard to radioactive decay, here is what an Analytical Chemist wrote. He was once a Licentiate of the Royal Society, specialising in chromatographic analysis of components down to parts per billion. He wrote of being "aware of the complexities of spectroscopic analysis; aware of the very unreliable methods of rock analysis; aware of the fact that sedimentary rock was definitely laid down in the aftermath of the Great Flood; aware of the fact that rock originates from that which may be molten; and aware of the fact that isotopic abundance is a mixed matter of creation, sedimentation and, only then, radioactive decay."

    • ...Show all comments
    • Robin W
      Lv 7
      6 months agoReport

      There was never any Global Flood, and your Analytical Chemist is probably fictional, since you didn't name him or her.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • Anonymous
    6 months ago

    jesusHchrist -- you theists actually compete for the lower rungs in the IQ scale,

    and you keep winning! Look at this "double-digit IQ" moron...

    This is the damage that BuyBull-Home-Schooling does to people!

    • jeffrcal
      Lv 7
      6 months agoReport

      I'm not convinced that those educated in public school are any better off intellectually. It's sad what's happening.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.