Cosidering Carbon dating cannot accurately date specemin of known age, how can it be trusted to millions?
411413
Usually it's an isotope of uranium or rubidium that's used to date something that is millions of years old.  These elements have much longer half-lives than C-14 and take much longer to decay.  Often more than one element is used to date an artifact for certainty.  In other words, the object will be dated using uranium, then with strontium, and the results checked against each other.\n\nRadiocarbon dating is not accurate for very recent artifacts and anything older than 60,000 years.  So, whatever this story is about living clam shells being misdated, it's not surprising nor does it disprove radiometric dating.  Variation in carbon levels make it difficult to accurately date a contemporary object.  Also, people sometimes state that all radiocarbon dating is wrong because of a few errors, this is misleading since it is very easy to contaminate objects with recent carbon and skew the results.
373306
It is supposed to be more than 2000 years.\nSee reference article.
876632
lol brave attempt, but ulitmately it doesn't matter how much scientific proof you can offer a creationist their blind faith won't accept it.\n\ncarbon dating may not be an exact science but it's a darned sight more accurate than believing in several unrealated documents compiled 100's of years after the events they 'record' by a roman emporer with an agenda..\n\nit's all fairly accademic to discuss the bible or creationism (or any religion) on somewhere like yahoo, you'll never change someones beliefs and at the end of the day, what does it matter. I wish i could believe in a god,it might make living feel slightly more purposeful...
890008
Radiocarbon dating relies on a simple natural phenomenon. As the Earth's upper atmosphere is bombarded by cosmic radiation, atmospheric nitrogen is broken down into an unstable isotope of carbon - carbon 14 (C-14).
16199
Carbon dating relies on the reliable half-life of a carbon isotope, not the amount of carbon present.
564371
1. Because carbon-14 has a half-life of only 5,730 years.  So after 60,000 years there is not enough left to measure reliably.  That's why carbon dating is *not* used for fossils (despite what many people, including most creationists, think) ... there are dozens of other techniques used for dating fossils and rocks.\n\n2. Because it only works on things that were eating or breathing carbon ... i.e. things that were once alive.  (So it is useless for rocks, or asteroids, much less stars.)\n\n3. Because you actually need a sample of what you are dating ... so you could not use it to date things like distant stars or galaxies (the things that go back to the Big Bang).
1032997
Yes of course they are! They and the suckers they mislead. \nThe brilliance of the charlatans of our day can be seen in the postings of many of their followers to yahoo answers. These charlatans have convinced the ignorant that not only is their opinion just as good as the opinion of experts (people who have spent their entire life studying a subject) it's actually better, because it's not based on unapproachable 'egghead' stuff, but on a child-like faith in sweet Jesus that even an idiot can have.  \nCrooks like Stroebel and Hovind are lying to this crowd and they mostly know it too. \nJust one example of this is their treatment of radioactive dating. When creationists say that dinosaur bones have been found that radio-carbon date to a few thousand years old, this leads their readers to assume that the dinosaur bones are only a few thousand years old, but surely the creationist know that carbon14 has a half-life of only of 5730 years. Potassium-argon dating is used to date anything over a million years old, and using that dating method, dinosaur bones date from between 140 and 65 million years. The creationists must know a simple fact like that. They complain about the unreliability of radioactive dating methods but see no problem with setting their clocks to standards based on radioactive decay. It's extremely reliable as a method of setting chronology.\nThere is a vast array of intertwining evidence that supports evolution, and the extremely old age of the universe and of the earth. Fields as diverse as biology, chemistry, geology, geography, nuclear physics, and astronomy, have given humans a wonderfully coherent and comprehensive picture of the universe we live in, of what it used to be like, and of what it most probably will be like in the future. It is a picture based on theories with not just great, but astonishing, predictive power. \nCreation science proves nothing, does not explain existing evidence, and has astonishingly poor predictive power. This is why no one at all, except Christian Fundamentalists, believes in creationism. \nUnfortunately creationists sound impressive to the ignorant and the gullible, and the English speaking world has both these types in abundance.
430075
considering that you are asking this on a science forum, I would say that we have absolutely no way of knowing and would never have a consensus even if we could travel back in time.  Humans came about slowly and for someone to point to one individual and say "this is the first true human being" is impossible.
1179172
I have studied this topic for nearly 4 years. I believe it is less than 7,000 years. I had trouble with this until I saw how things are dated. Then I knew that there was no "proof" of anything over  about 5500 years old. Every thing over that age, whether 20,000 years or 4.5 billion years is speculation. I have worked in the science industry for about 30 years. I know my way around a lab. I certainly don't know everything, but I know these old dates given to fossils and rocks are speculation. Recent discoveries in DNA and Micro-biology have placed serious doubt in a lot of scientist minds about evolution. I know for a fact that creation is debated by scientists daily. Many can no longer support theories once held by the majority.
1165467
Definitely probabilistic, but it uses deterministic processes.\n\nFirst of all, it has some significant assumptions:\n- Carbon dating assumes the dead object was in carbon equilibrium with the surroundings.  This is fine.\n- It assumes the amount of carbon in an object 1000's of years old is the same as an object today.  Maybe fine if there are existing specimens.  Not so good with dinosaurs.\n- It assumes the ratio of C-14 to normal Carbon is exactly the same as it is today.  Probably not so fine (think ozone layer).\n\nRadioactive decay is deterministic and measuring it is deterministic (you can conclusively point to a number that directly relates to decay rate), but radioactive dating (of which carbon dating is just one type) is based on the probability of carbon decay.  It assumes C-14 will decay at a specific rate.  The likelihood of this probability is very high to about 50,000-100,000 years, at which point there is too much uncertainty in the assumption and too little decay to measure accurately.  This is why they do not use carbon dating for dinosaur fossils, for example.
26447
Just because petrification can take place in less than one-hundred years (sources?), doesn't mean that all petrification has. \n\nPotassium/Argon dating provides an accurate way to date objects older than 100,000 years. \n\nWe don't assume that dinosaur bones are so old, we know they are.
1123593
There is some evidence that the fine structure constant has changed over time. However, the degree of change is less than 1/10 of a percent over 10 billion years. This is certainly not enough to justify a young universe model. It should be pointed out that the cDK people like to point to supposed decreases in measured values of c without looking at the error bars on those measurements. They also have a great tendency to pick and choose measurements rather than look at all the ones available. For example, Romer's original estimate of c was lower than the currently accepted one.\n\nUntlimatey, the goal of cDK is to make it possible for the universe to be only 10,000 years old ather than 13.7 billion. This is to bring things into line with biblical literalism. However, it was clear even before radioactive dating that the earth was at least millions of years old.\n\nSorry, ad hoc explanations without any justification.
352259
they have found remains of a huge wooden construction on Mount Arakat and the carbon dating looks about right .\nso it is very possible that it has been found.
650039
what a troubling Q: but i agree with that 6k yrs of this planet... the carbon dating is nothing but a paleontological gibberish... the world is not a million or so yrs old... mybe they just need a lil more tyme checking the computations... one million yr wud mean a day or a week in the christian "dating" watdayathink?? (,"}
365812
Carbon-14 is only reliable for dating objects up to about 60,000 years old.  The website below explains the equation in detail if your interested.
732413
Why is it that so many Christians are so terribly uninformed about the nature of science?\n\nDo you honestly believe that radio carbon dating is the only dating method used by scientists? Do you know nothing about stratigraphic layering?\n\nVery well.... a basic science lesson...\n\nIf you know about the movement of the earth and the effect water and wind has on wearing away and moving soil to different areas, then you'll understand what such things as sediment are.\n\nThen please take into consideration such things as volcanic eruptions, and the movement of the techtonic plates (which I'm going to assume you understand since it's what causes earthquakes).\n\nWith all of these it's safe to say that older rock is farther down on a rock wall.\n\nNow, when you look at this rock, that means that the newer rock will be on top of the older rock. By looking at the rock, you can safely place the rock into different layers based on the prevaling earth conditions at that time.\n\nSo, animals that die at that time, will fall into that layer of rock. Such as, animals that die this year, will be found in the layer of rock that's laid down this year.\n\nAnimals that died 1000 years ago will be found in the layer of rock that was laid down during that time.\n\nAnd yes, the layering tends to be very noticable. For example... if you had a volcanic eruption at that time, the fallout from the eruption will fall on the earth in that area, creating a discoloration (and obsidian which is created only by volcanos) rock in that time period.\n\nWhat this is called is stratigraphic layering.\n\nSo, stratigraphic layering is one method of determining age.\n\nHowever, it only shows that one fossil is older than another, it doesn't show the exact age of the fossil.\n\nBut there are other methods.\n\nThe one that the Christians seem to fixate on is radio carbon dating (which btw, is reliable to samples in under 60 000 years of age, and within a time period of a few thousand years on either side of the possibile age). \n\nHowever, there are many other methods that are unknown or completely dismissed by Christians.\n\nUranium-thorium dating\nPotassium-argon dating\nargon-argon dating\nFission track dating\nCosmogenic isotope dating\nRubidium-strontium dating\nSamarium-neodymium dating\nRhenium-osmium dating\nLutetium-hafnium dating\nPaleomagnetic dating\nThermo-luminescence dating (quartz exposure to heat)\n\nBut then we add other methods of dating such as\n\nDendrochronology\nIce cores\nLichenometry\nVarves\n\nAnd that only begins to scratch the surface of dating methods used by scientists. All these methods are based on mathmatics and chemistry. Which methods are used depends on whats found in the area and where the sample is found. Such as, something found on the ocean floor will require different dating methods than something found in the mountains.\n\nSo.... we don't know the age and there's no possible way to find out because you're closed mind and uneducated guess says that the only dating method we use is radio carbon dating? I beg to differ.\n\nThere are many many ways to scientifically prove the age of a sample. But you have to be willing to use them instead of dismiss them because "the only thing accurate can be the bible".\n\nYou see, I intended on being a paleontologist for a living and, though I never did finish the degree, I have something of a clue about all this.\n\nThe long and short of it is, religion is wrong and education is the only way to solve that problem. But you have to be willing to become educated. Knowledge is power.\n\nThe fact that you also completely dismiss such things as DNA, x-rays, lasers, etc, shows just how uneducated you are.
968818
Shanna and Geo06 have got this just about right.  The only thing I can add is that radiocarbon dating can not be used for more than about 70,000 years ago, and is more accurate for living things that died within the last 8,000 years.\n\nMost geologists measure rock ages in millions, or even billions, of years, so the age of the earth and the age of almost all igneous rocks is well beyond the range of carbon dating.  On top of that, igneous rocks contain very little if any carbon,  so carbon dating is not applicable here.  \n\nSo the only thing carbon 14 can be used for is to determine the time that an exchange of carbon with the atmosphere stopped, ie, the death of a living thing - the third item on your list of choices for your homework.\n\nThe half life of C-14, the radioactive isotope of carbon, is about 5730 years.  Therefore, if you know the ratio between C-14 and C-12 in the atmosphere when the organism died, and you know the ratio now, the difference in the ratio can be calculated backwards, using the half life, to estimate when the organism died. \n\nAtmospheric C-14 has not been in a constant ratio with C-12, as previously thought, so there are some serious problems with the accuracy of C-14 dating.  The problem is that the natural ratio of the carbon isotopes in the atmosphere (carbon dioxide) varies because cosmic ray bombardment of the outer atmosphere produces C-14 but not C-12.  The ratio can be predicted accurately using the ratios in old trees, where the tree rings can be used to accurately determine the age of each ring with its annual ratio, with a maximum of about 8,000 years -that's how old the oldest trees are which can establish a reference ratio.\n\nDating of artifacts is a best guess, the best method is to measure the amount of lichens growing on them, or the age of carbon in ashes found in the same spot.