Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Adampadum123

Carbon dating

26 posts in this topic

How do we truly know if carbon dating is accurate.and can solar flares effect the procedure of testing 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that you mean carbon and I don"t know but I could pretend to know and say it's like speed dating only slower and with less people

jmccr8

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Adampadum123 said:

How do we truly know if carbon dating is accurate.and can solar flares effect the procedure of testing 

Why do you ask, and how have you researched the topic before this, such that you ask the question?

 

The quick and simple answer is No.  The more complex answer is that there have been (old) reports that solar flares *may* have had a very small effect on the radioactive decay of some elements, but:

- Carbon wasn't one of them.

- Those reports have not been replicated or verified and were most likely simple experimental error - the effect was miniscule anyway.

Back around 2010 and 2011, the issue was heavily promoted by some to try to denigrate carbon-dating and thus 'prove' biblical history.... but no.

 

More related info here:

https://www.nature.com/news/mysterious-radiation-burst-recorded-in-tree-rings-1.10768

and there are other ways to verify the accuracy of radiometrics and carbon dating, eg:

https://phys.org/news/2014-10-textbook-knowledge-reconfirmed-radioactive-substances.html

 

9 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Adampadum123 said:

How do we truly know if carbon dating is accurate.and can solar flares effect the procedure of testing 

As I understand it, carbon dating is based on the predictable decay of carbon isotopes. It's a nearly invariable process, so if you can know the state of the carbon decay you can work out how long it's existed. 

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jmccr8 said:

I know that you mean carbon and I don"t know but I could pretend to know and say it's like speed dating only slower and with less people

jmccr8

It involves getting twenty-two plus people together in a dimly lighted room, stripping naked, and being cover head to toe with coal dust then [redacted for adults only] - but be sure to bring twist ties, cheese grater, and some Green olives

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

46 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

As I understand it, carbon dating is based on the predictable decay of carbon isotopes. It's a nearly invariable process, so if you can know the state of the carbon decay you can work out how long it's existed. 

Oh.............oops

Disregard my earlier message, er ah, yeah

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/dating-in-archaeology/

C-14 is used in conjunction with other forms of dating to come up with an average.

The strange affect that solar flares have on radioactive elements:

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html

I suspect that the OP is wondering about accuracy and environmental changes that can influence results:

 

Quote

Probably the most important factor to consider when using radiocarbon dating is if external factors, whether through artificial contamination, animal disturbance, or human negligence, contributed to any errors in the determinations. For example, rootlet intrusion, soil type (e.g., limestone carbonates), and handling of the specimens in the field or lab (e.g., accidental introduction of tobacco ash, hair, or fibers) can all potentially affect the age of a sample. Bioturbation by crabs, rodents, and other animals can also cause samples to move between strata leading to age reversals. Shell may succumb to isotopic exchange if it interacts with carbon from percolating ground acids or recrystallization when shell aragonite transforms to calcite and involves the exchange of modern calcite.

The surrounding environment can also influence radiocarbon ages. The introduction of "old" or "artificial" carbon into the atmosphere (i.e., the "Suess Effect" and "Atom Bomb Effect", respectively) can influence the ages of dates making them appear older or younger than they actually are. This is a major concern for bone dates where pretreatment procedures must be employed to isolate protein or a specific amino acid such as hydroxyproline (known to occur almost exclusively in bone collagen) to ensure accurate age assessments of bone specimens. Alone, or in concert, these factors can lead to inaccuracies and misinterpretations by archaeologists without proper investigation of the potential problems associated with sampling and dating.

To help resolve these issues, radiocarbon laboratories have conducted inter-laboratory comparison exercises (see for example, the August 2003 special issue of Radiocarbon), devised rigorous pretreatment procedures to remove any carbon-containing compounds unrelated to the actual sample being dated, and developed calibration methods for terrestrial and marine carbon. Shells of known age collected prior to nuclear testing have also been dated (http://radiocarbon.pa.qub.ac.uk/marine) to ascertain the effects of old carbon (i.e., local marine reservoir effects).

https://projects.ncsu.edu/project/archae/enviro_radio/overview.html

The wikipedia also covers most of the 'influencing factors', well

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating#Dating_considerations

 

Edited by Hanslune
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If solar flare had any impact on carbon dating we would know simly by testing objects with a known age. This have been done repeatedly and shows no discrepancy.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ChrsLzs and Hanslune have done a great job with this so I don't think I need to pile on right now, other than to say this discussion is tailor-made for Swede.

Really the only people who consistently seem to doubt radiocarbon dating are creationists and folks of similar bent, who don't seem knowledgeable of the science in the first place. I occasionally encounter them in the Egyptian exhibit at the museum, although the folks in our dino and evolution exhibit tend to deal with them more (not surprisingly). Carbon dating has become a highly reliable dating method, especially with AMS. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but last I checked. such dating techniques are still usually reliable for organic samples less than 50,000 years old. It would probably even work on me (tee-hee!).

One of my favorite C14 analyses was the carbon dating of Old and Middle Kingdom monuments in Egypt: PDF download (Bonani et al 2001). It discusses some of the challenges they encountered and provides raw as well as calibrated dates. Carbon dating is not a shoot-from-the-hip practice but rather a modern and exacting scientific undertaking, when properly conducted.

And I can't leave without recommending a particularly good book on the topic. That would be Nature's Clocks, by Doug Macdougall (University of California Press 2009). It discusses the general dating techniques available to archaeologists and scientists, and how the science behind them works. And it has quite a few fun stories. Best of all, it's well explained for most any layman. 

Carbon dating was first developed at the University of Chicago in the late 1940s. The scientist was Willard Libby. He was looking for good artifacts with fairly well known provenance so as to test and develop his technology, and several items from the Field Museum of Chicago were included in the trials. One of my favorite stories in Nature's Clocks was how a Field exectuive had purchased an Egyptian antiquity and wanted to know if it was authentic, so he included it with the other artifacts for Libby's tests—but did not tell Libby. The artifact turned out to be a modern forgery but at first Libby didn't know that, and was deeply worried that his technology was failing because it wouldn't give reliable results for the artifact. The Field executive soon came clean and admitted what he'd done, and needless to say, Libby was not amused.

8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 0:53 AM, Adampadum123 said:

How do we truly know if carbon dating is accurate.and can solar flares effect the procedure of testing 

The highest on the chart of carbon dating was in dino age . High Solar flares could have been happing  the heating of the core that blew up from volcanos.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you particularly questioning the carbon dating? Is there something you would like to think is older or newer? 

Do you have some dogmatic reason why you are hoping for it to be incorrect?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ChaosRose said:

Why are you particularly questioning the carbon dating? Is there something you would like to think is older or newer? 

Do you have some dogmatic reason why you are hoping for it to be incorrect?

That's a good question. I should've just put it that way. Gold star for you.

animated-clipart-star-20.gif

To the OP, Adampadum123: what is it you ultimately hope to achieve with this thread?

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He came back on Friday morning, viewed the thread he created, but did not respond. Perhaps he'll come back after the weekend

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, docyabut2 said:

The highest on the chart of carbon dating was in dino age . High Solar flares could have been happing  the heating of the core that blew up from volcanos.  

The can be no carbon dates for the "dino age."

As was stated, C14 dating is only good for 50k years or so because of the half life of C14.

Harte

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just interested in the subject I don't know much about corbon dating lol.some people believe it's flawed and others stand by it 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no amazing reason for my question. sorry didn't realise they had to be :) I sound b****y 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

That's a good question. I should've just put it that way. Gold star for you.

animated-clipart-star-20.gif

To the OP, Adampadum123: what is it you ultimately hope to achieve with this thread?

Well, usually, there's something that someone is clinging to, like the shroud or a young earth theory. There's some reason they don't want the science to be correct. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ChaosRose said:

Well, usually, there's something that someone is clinging to, like the shroud or a young earth theory. There's some reason they don't want the science to be correct. 

That is true but this poster give does seem to not be familiar with language and I suspect just wanting to gain some knowledge so I would be inclined to give them the staight dope and see if they later make an unsupported claim.

jmccr8 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Adampadum123 said:

I was just interested in the subject I don't know much about corbon dating lol.some people believe it's flawed and others stand by it 

Some people do think C14 dating is flawed. Those are generally people who do not understand the science—and often enough, people who refuse to learn the science. Like we've said, these are often creationists, young earthers, and the like. On the other hand, those familiar with the science know how reliable C14 dating is because of all the work and protocol that goes into it.

5 hours ago, Adampadum123 said:

There's no amazing reason for my question. sorry didn't realise they had to be :) I sound b****y 

That's okay. You've really done nothing wrong. And even if this thread dies out in the next few minutes, you got some dialog going among us. It's always good to ask questions, so long as you're genuinely interested in hearing the answers (some posters aren't).

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ChaosRose said:

Well, usually, there's something that someone is clinging to, like the shroud or a young earth theory. There's some reason they don't want the science to be correct. 

Are you saying some of our posters might have an ulterior motive? Perish the thought!

It's all good, so long as everyone understands the world was created in 4004 BCE. patschhn6.gif

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

Are you saying some of our posters might have an ulterior motive? Perish the thought!

It's all good, so long as everyone understands the world was created in 4004 BCE. patschhn6.gif

 

On October 23 at 9AM! That's GMT if you are wondering.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, stereologist said:

On October 23 at 9AM! That's GMT if you are wondering.

Galilee Mean Time ?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

ChrsLzs and Hanslune have done a great job with this so I don't think I need to pile on right now, other than to say this discussion is tailor-made for Swede.

Really the only people who consistently seem to doubt radiocarbon dating are creationists and folks of similar bent, who don't seem knowledgeable of the science in the first place. I occasionally encounter them in the Egyptian exhibit at the museum, although the folks in our dino and evolution exhibit tend to deal with them more (not surprisingly). Carbon dating has become a highly reliable dating method, especially with AMS. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but last I checked. such dating techniques are still usually reliable for organic samples less than 50,000 years old. It would probably even work on me (tee-hee!).

One of my favorite C14 analyses was the carbon dating of Old and Middle Kingdom monuments in Egypt: PDF download (Bonani et al 2001). It discusses some of the challenges they encountered and provides raw as well as calibrated dates. Carbon dating is not a shoot-from-the-hip practice but rather a modern and exacting scientific undertaking, when properly conducted.

And I can't leave without recommending a particularly good book on the topic. That would be Nature's Clocks, by Doug Macdougall (University of California Press 2009). It discusses the general dating techniques available to archaeologists and scientists, and how the science behind them works. And it has quite a few fun stories. Best of all, it's well explained for most any layman. 

Carbon dating was first developed at the University of Chicago in the late 1940s. The scientist was Willard Libby. He was looking for good artifacts with fairly well known provenance so as to test and develop his technology, and several items from the Field Museum of Chicago were included in the trials. One of my favorite stories in Nature's Clocks was how a Field exectuive had purchased an Egyptian antiquity and wanted to know if it was authentic, so he included it with the other artifacts for Libby's tests—but did not tell Libby. The artifact turned out to be a modern forgery but at first Libby didn't know that, and was deeply worried that his technology was failing because it wouldn't give reliable results for the artifact. The Field executive soon came clean and admitted what he'd done, and needless to say, Libby was not amused.

The problem with creationists, is that in the first Chapter of Genesis, it really doesn't say what they say.  In Genesis, the Sun and Moon weren't even created until the 4th day of creation, Genesis Chapter 1.  So, then, the 3 previous days, it obviously wasn't a solar day, or even a lunar month.  Even in Hinduism it claims millions of years.  So as also, the Bible talks about dragons and giants in the earth, so Dinosaurs, which do seem draconic,and are found in the earth, and are also gigantic.

It's really a complex issue, but I don't think the scripture disagrees with evidence as much as people like to claim.  History has been rewritten by the victors, is an old quote,and I think it applies somewhat in these issues.  However, I think it is a profitable idea to think for yourself and question authority, because many things are biased on both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

15 hours ago, Adampadum123 said:

I was just interested in the subject I don't know much about corbon dating lol.some people believe it's flawed and others stand by it 

You could read up on it on Wikipedia and then follow the links.  There's a ton of sites that explain it, and explain it well.  

You will have to know a little bit (but just a little) about the structure of atoms and about atomic decay.  Here's a quick list of questions for a "BS meter" test on radiocarbon dating

 

1.  If a site is talking about radiocarbon dating and does NOT mention atoms and nuclear decay, they have no idea what they're talking about.

2.  If they're talking about dates younger than 100 years, they have no idea what they're talking about

3.  If they're talking about dates older than 50,000 years, they have no idea what they're talking about

4.  If they're talking about radiocarbon dating on rocks, they have no idea what they're talking about

5.  If they don't mention radioisotope dating, they have no idea what they're talking about

6.  If they mention radiocarbon dating tracks (footprints), they have no idea what they're talking about

7.  If they don't mention the corrections made to the dates in the past 50 years, they have no idea what they're talking about

8.  If they don't mention dates with a plus-minus factor, they have no idea what they're talking about (NO radiometric dating of any sort can give you an exact year though with more recent material they can give you a decade.)

9.  If they talk as though radiocarbon dating is used for ALL dating methods, they have no idea what they're talking about

10. If they mention radiocarbon dating fossils, they have no idea what they're talking about

 

 

Edited by Kenemet
7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

You could read up on it on Wikipedia and then follow the links.  There's a ton of sites that explain it, and explain it well.  

You will have to know a little bit (but just a little) about the structure of atoms and about atomic decay.  Here's a quick list of questions for a "BS meter" test on radiocarbon dating

 

1.  If a site is talking about radiocarbon dating and does NOT mention atoms and nuclear decay, they have no idea what they're talking about.

2.  If they're talking about dates younger than 100 years, they have no idea what they're talking about

3.  If they're talking about dates older than 50,000 years, they have no idea what they're talking about

4.  If they're talking about radiocarbon dating on rocks, they have no idea what they're talking about

5.  If they don't mention radioisotope dating, they have no idea what they're talking about

6.  If they mention radiocarbon dating tracks (footprints), they have no idea what they're talking about

7.  If they don't mention the corrections made to the dates in the past 50 years, they have no idea what they're talking about

8.  If they don't mention dates with a plus-minus factor, they have no idea what they're talking about (NO radiometric dating of any sort can give you an exact year though with more recent material they can give you a decade.)

9.  If they talk as though radiocarbon dating is used for ALL dating methods, they have no idea what they're talking about

 

This is all very good, and I thank you for your wise counsel. Just remember—I say again—the world was created in 4004 BCE.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/21/2017 at 10:18 PM, jmccr8 said:

I know that you mean carbon and I don"t know but I could pretend to know and say it's like speed dating only slower and with less people

jmccr8

We are all carbon based life forms, so by definition...would that not be carbon dating?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.