Carbon dating has a margin of error of plus or minus 2000 years.

in cahoots

Active member
Messages
77
Likes
191
#1
This brief article presents a rebuttal to a key argument of detractors -- for anything within the past 1000 years of history, carbon dating is literally worthless.

In one stroke, this cripples confidence in many of the predominant narratives. Even if carbon dating were easy to do at home, we could not verify the origins of anything in the past 2000 years using anything but a paper trial. Paperwork never suddenly changes, right? Except when it burns?

Heather Graven, an atmospheric scientist, has estimated that by 2050 "the age of fresh organic matter will appear indistinguishable from material created in A.D. 1050" due to fossil-fuel emissions.

The calculations given above produce dates in radiocarbon years: i.e. dates that represent the age the sample would be if the 14C/12C ratio had been constant historically. Coal and oil began to be burned in large quantities during the 19th century. Both are sufficiently old that they contain little detectable 14C and, as a result, the CO2 released substantially diluted the atmospheric 14C/12C ratio. Dating an object from the early 20th century hence gives an apparent date older than the true date.

Carbon dating

Radiocarbon dating: Errors and reliability
 

CyborgNinja

Well-known member
Messages
121
Likes
327
#2
Another point, carbon dating relies on comparisons to carbon dates of already established artifacts in order to determine the age of the sample in question. Those comparison artifacts' dates are determined using imperfect methods, basically a historians educated guess based on circumstantial evidence. Its like, "oh we found this axe handle in a hole and we know this hole is 3000 years old because (insert reason) so the half life carbon date of this axe handle will be our marker for 3000 year old carbon dates from now on." I'm not impressed with these 'experts'.
 
OP
OP
I

in cahoots

Active member
Messages
77
Likes
191
#4
Another point, carbon dating relies on comparisons to carbon dates of already established artifacts in order to determine the age of the sample in question. Those comparison artifacts' dates are determined using imperfect methods, basically a historians educated guess based on circumstantial evidence. Its like, "oh we found this axe handle in a hole and we know this hole is 3000 years old because (insert reason) so the half life carbon date of this axe handle will be our marker for 3000 year old carbon dates from now on." I'm not impressed with these 'experts'.
That's not totally fair.

In localized areas, archaeologists can actually read tree rings to verify the C14/C12 concentrations over the years, and then cross-check those densities with the carbon dates of nearby objects, and adjust accordingly. Carbon dating is still not as good as we are told it is, but it is a remarkable discovery in chemistry, especially for much older things.

Of course, as dear Korben has pointed out -- doesn't seem there are any trees left old enough to answer the questions we raise here.
 
Messages
29
Likes
48
#5
If you check the cave art thread, I posted about indigenous rock art.

Carbon dating = 4000 years old
Time since indigenous people were in the area = 4000-6000 years
Indigenous statement = "The art came from people here long before we were"
Science statement = "Well the culture/clothing matches so they are lying it is their art"

Pretty much does seem worthless for telling anything worthwhile. That is of course if you believe even the dates given above with reference to thousands of years of humans in australia.
 

dreamtime

Active member
Messages
35
Likes
109
#6
I know this may sound to some as if I categorically reject science, but I almost categorically reject carbon dating, simply based on the things I already know about this world. Especially the fact that the poles are ice free on older maps, but the dating methods speak about hundreds of thousands of years.

Unfortunately I haven't looked into this topic yet, and haven't worked out a sophisticated theory as to why this is the case, except the usual philosophical problems that you need known events to calibrate the whole thing. How would you even know how much C14 was in the atmosphere in the past to know how much has decayed and who knows how much of it really decays over long periods of time?

Just reading on Wikipedia it is clearly states that it's a very rough method and the finer interpretation is called calibration. This means the level of freedom in "calibrating" basically means that you can make up any date in the time span of recent human history, because "well look at the context".

So it's totally unreliable in itself, but supposedly gets reliable in combination with tree ring dating. So one would have to look at that. If it's completely non-disputable that trees only create one ring per year, then I guess it will be very difficult to disprove this kind of dating. Or one would have to look at how exactly the calibrating works and if there can be an error when applying the tree ring dating to the object that needs to be dated. There's also the possibility of trees breathing, i.e. incorporating carbon to a certain extent while they still live.

In general, there's the problem that this kind of dating is basically only for organic material, if I get this right.

Do I get this right, if for some reason C14 was only introduced into our atmosphere at some point, then all dating from before is basically worthless?

And another factor would be atmopsheric CO2. Imagine that the ice age is a relativily new phenomenon, and before that before so many organisms got wiped out, CO2 concentrations were way higher. This would dilute the C14 up to a point that basically everything that happened before the ice age would be essentially un-dateable.
 
Last edited:
Messages
35
Likes
109
#8
Carbon dating is only used for recent dates, because the c14 carbons completely disappear after 50,000 years or so. One interesting implication is that fossil fuel is basically free of radioactive C14. This fact is used by science to assert that it has been down there for a very long time, like millions of years. But it could also simply be that it was just never in contact with the atmosphere, because it is created natively down there over long or not so long periods of time.

Another story is the ice sheet dating, where it is assumed out of nowhere that every year the same layer of ice got added to the sheet, and then the thickness of each layer is calculated mathematically (and arbitrarily).

I don't really know what kind of dating is involved when a scientist says with absolute certainty "This island is 500 million years old". Looks like it's called Radiometric Dating:

The dating method is usually performed on the mineral zircon. The mineral incorporates uranium and thorium atoms into its crystal structure, but strongly rejects lead. Therefore, one can assume that the entire lead content of the zircon is radiogenic, i.e. it is produced solely by a process of radioactive decay after the formation of the mineral. Thus the current ratio of lead to uranium in the mineral can be used to determine its age.
The method relies on two separate decay chains, the uranium series from 238U to 206Pb, with a half-life of 4.47 billion years and the actinium series from 235U to 207Pb, with a half-life of 710 million years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium–lead_dating

How on earth can anyone know that the half life of uranium is 710 million years, let alone one of 4.47 billion years?

The biggest fallacy of the gradualism ideology in geology is really that things were absolutely stable for billion of years, and now that humans are involved the whole planet is changing within a blink of an eye, it is the foundation of the ideology of man made climate change, and the foundation of so many other modern belief systems like atheism. belief in eternal space, etc.. It is also the foundation of discarding all the older maps before the 19th Century, all myths and religious stories, even scientific lore from the past is declared as fable (think about the scientific way of people in the middle ages to report about all the monsters like dragons, etc.)

If some geologist were to prove this whole theory wrong, it could change everything. Unfortunately it is not possible to prove an ideology wrong, and since science got to a point where most scientists even reject the idea of having an ideology, it's impossible to question anything. Every scientist who beliefs in catastrophism knows that his world view is based on philosophical core assumptions, and would be ready to question them, even if painful. The circular logic of science has been perfected up to a point that it is not possible to escape the mental prison, because everything supports the ideas that already exist. When 100,000 people look for evidence, they find it, and it creates so many "facts", that you won't get out of it when you lack education in philosophy or don't have the desire to look at things differently.

Only mainstream science has forgotten their philosophical roots. The function of suppressing those roots is to persuade oneself that there is only a single explanation for everything, and that the basics are already worked out. Ever since these basic questions were "settled" 150 years ago, only the details of the core assumptions have been worked out.

Imagine that, for 150 years almost not a single scientific core assumption had to be questioned in in physics, geology, etc. People 150 years ago were real geniuses, figuring out the complete nature of the universe, and we are only adding in the details. Everytime some really smart people questioned the atheistic ideology, some people emerged to add another layer of complexity (like Einstein), to explain things.

Nowadays everything has become so complex as a result, that normal people are told they can not understand the nature of reality, but they are told to believe to results of the complex models.

The basic idea is that nature is an accident, humans are basically robots and life will slowly disappear into chaos and death. We can only fight against this entropy with synthetic medication or looking for other planets after earth has been destroyed.

Modern atheists love the idea of entropy. It is one of the core ideas of 150 years ago, that is still alive. All life is always slowly decaying, and the universe will go into a painful heat death at one point. Everything is slowly succumbing into chaos, and the order that existed with the beginning of the universe just accidentally came out of nowhere.

The mental prison that has been created is only getting more complex with modern super computers creating models that support all the 19th Century claims, for some magical reason.
 
Last edited:
Messages
241
Likes
248
#9
Very well said, sir! Science has become the new religion with the high priests (scientists) expounding the mysteries of the universe from on high (universities). We lesser beings are not allowed to question their almighty wisdom and even common sense and observable data are not welcome if it contradicts the current dogma.

"Therefore, one can assume that ...." (from your wiki snippet above)- I look for statements like that when I'm reading/learning about new subject matter. Also the words "maybe, probably, usually, we think" and other such uncertainties. What's hilarious is at the end of a page or book full of such uncertain qualifiers the writers will declare with absolute certainty their totally guessed-at conclusions.

Carbon-14 dating was the gold standard of dating the geological record when I was a girl but as I got older, too many scientists (and others) had begun to question the absolute validity of that method so another, more complicated method (radiometric dating) was substituted. With both carbon-14 and radiometric dating, the rate of decay is assumed to be constant over the millennium with no possibility for irregular rates of decay. It's not a horrible idea but it IS based on assumption and if the scientists would just admit THAT, I'd be ok with their ridiculous dates. At least the possibility would exist for alternate findings/conclusions; then an impassioned discussion could ensue that would include all the other evidence.

In an academic climate of publish-or-perish in which a career and entire livelihood depend on never being wrong, the stakes are very high for scientists to stubbornly refuse to admit any new evidence which might make them look foolish or patently wrong. One often has to wait for an entire generation to die off (so as to not offend or risk the vociferous ire of published "experts") before new ideas can timidly come forth. This is not how science is supposed to work.

Long live the heretics!
 
Top