This is something I've wondered about since I've heard and read about it. The reason I put it in this part of the forum is because it has relation to the past, and, well, it related to history in that carbon dating is used to give us a timeline of when things came into existence.

Now, I'm not saying one way or another on what's right and wrong, what's accurate or inaccurate. I don't have a scientific background, I just find the debates on both sides, religious and scientific, to be obviously biased.

I've read science-based sites that claim that dating with carbon as well as other radioactive substances is very accurate. I've read some religious based theories on it, stating a good argument for WHY it might be inaccurate. I'd like to note that some of what I've read on the religion based theories includes examples of variations in carbon in the atmosphere due to events such as the flood, which I PERSONALLY believe to have only been a flood that covered a certain region, as opposed to the entire planet.

I'm just curious to know what your points of view on this are... your beliefs in the accuracy of the actual age of everything, etc.

No science or religion bashing please.

I'd like to see points on both sides.

Here's a couple links to start:

Religious theory:
http://www.contenderministries.org/evolution/carbon14.php

Scientific theory:
http://www.c14dating.com/agecalc.html

Personally I’m in the same boat as you. Carbon dating dates the given object. But everything is made up of something else that has been around for however long! How do these tests work?

Dating is a science unto itself. It requires so much knowledge that it composes a field of specialists all its own. Many, many factors have to be accounted for, and there is no one way in whci to get a general answer. There is a popular creationist trick that involves giving a dating expert an artifact and having them date it while lying about the actual age of the artifact. When the answer comes back wrong, they cheer it as a victory for the anti-evolution camp. What they refuse to acknowledge, however, is that not all dating systems are designed for the same era's and using one method for something which does not fall into its age range will produce an incorrect answer.

Radioactive dating is very, very acurrate...It harnesses the universe's most precise unit of time-radioactive decay.

Carbon dating is used more often as the isotope is much more stable...so its better for predicting from the Cambrian age on... Carbon is also found in all living things. Stronium is much more unstable, so it is more useful for dating from before the pre-cambrian age.

Is it true that the decay process can be altered due to various environmental changes?

Yes...and no.

The decay process itself can be mildly affected, though only rarely in a large enough to affect the dating. The reading of the decay, however, can be affected by external influences. For instance, if a mildly radioactive soil deposit grows around the object, it is very easy to mistakenly date the substance instead of the object, thus leading to an inconclusive answer.

The chance is very low...unless they use the wrong technique on the subject.

I hate to agree with frogfish, but carbon dating is very, very, very etc, acurrate

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html

Here's a quick outline on how it works and why it's so accurate as well as some limitations.

Lol

why are you mocking me frog fish

???
I'm not. Do you not know what "lol" means?

"laugh out loud" I thought that you were laughing at me

no, he was laughing with you.
I have no qualms agreeing with frogfish, he's right on the money there, as far as i knew, and as stated previously, carbon dating is one of the most accurate methods around. I didn't know there was any question as to it's effectiveness, nice to know both sides of an issue though..

actually, frogfish, carbon 14 only has a half-life of about 5730 years, so it is great for dating cenozoic matter, but uranium 235, uranium 238, and potassium 40 are much more reliable for earlier times. It is indeed the most accurate form of dating.

here's how it works:
not all isotopes are stable. the unstable ones are used to date things. the half life is how long it takes for half of the parent atoms (like carbon 14) in the sample to decay into daughter atoms (nitrogen 14), in this case, 5730 years. so if you've got 50/50, 5730 years have passed. 25/75, 11460 years.

neat, huh?

Carbon dating is still more widely used than other elements for Mesozoic and Paleozoic dating.

it seems this is one of the few things we can agree about.

USGS info on radiocarbon dating

Very nicely said.


700 million for U-235
1260 million for K-40
4.47 billion years for U-238 (there is some speculation about this number as it may be up to 4.51, but when you are dealing in Billions of years... if you're off a few million, you are still statistically OK.)

Use the right tool for the right job. My understanding is that one of the reasons carbon dating is used so much is because relatively speaking it decays quickly.... That and carbon seems to be in most everything that we want to date now-a-days, go figure.