How accurate is carbon dating?

tdidymas

Newbie
Aug 28, 2014
2,323
998
Houston, TX
✟163,485.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
This question is for a Christian who is knowledgeable about carbon dating. It requires that the person responding has detailed knowledge of how carbon dating is done and its nuances.

Note the article in the link below, it states that particles of bread were found to be 14,400 years old by carbon dating. So the question is, how accurate is carbon dating, and is there something that is fundamentally wrong with it or how it is done, and what would that be?

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org...k in Review Newsletter&utm_campaign=ZE8A72Z40

TD:)
 

chuckpeterson

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 19, 2018
546
204
58
texas
✟134,252.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Radiocarbon dating (also referred to as carbon dating or carbon-14 dating) is a method for determining the age of an object containing organic material by using the properties of radiocarbon, a radioactive isotope of carbon.

The method was developed in the late 1940s by Willard Libby, who received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work in 1960. It is based on the fact that radiocarbon (14
C) is constantly being created in the atmosphere by the interaction of cosmic rays with atmospheric nitrogen. The resulting 14
C combines with atmospheric oxygen to form radioactive carbon dioxide, which is incorporated into plants by photosynthesis; animals then acquire 14
C by eating the plants. When the animal or plant dies, it stops exchanging carbon with its environment, and from that point onwards the amount of 14
C it contains begins to decrease as the 14
Cundergoes radioactive decay. Measuring the amount of 14
C in a sample from a dead plant or animal such as a piece of wood or a fragment of bone provides information that can be used to calculate when the animal or plant died. The older a sample is, the less 14
C there is to be detected, and because the half-life of 14
C (the period of time after which half of a given sample will have decayed) is about 5,730 years, the oldest dates that can be reliably measured by this process date to around 50,000 years ago, although special preparation methods occasionally permit accurate analysis of older samples.

Research has been ongoing since the 1960s to determine what the proportion of 14
C in the atmosphere has been over the past fifty thousand years. The resulting data, in the form of a calibration curve, is now used to convert a given measurement of radiocarbon in a sample into an estimate of the sample's calendar age. Other corrections must be made to account for the proportion of 14
C in different types of organisms (fractionation), and the varying levels of 14
Cthroughout the biosphere (reservoir effects). Additional complications come from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil, and from the above-ground nuclear tests done in the 1950s and 1960s. Because the time it takes to convert biological materials to fossil fuels is substantially longer than the time it takes for its 14
C to decay below detectable levels, fossil fuels contain almost no 14
C, and as a result there was a noticeable drop in the proportion of 14
C in the atmosphere beginning in the late 19th century. Conversely, nuclear testing increased the amount of 14
C in the atmosphere, which attained a maximum in about 1965 of almost twice what it had been before the testing began.

Measurement of radiocarbon was originally done by beta-counting devices, which counted the amount of beta radiation emitted by decaying 14
C atoms in a sample. More recently, accelerator mass spectrometry has become the method of choice; it counts all the 14
C atoms in the sample and not just the few that happen to decay during the measurements; it can therefore be used with much smaller samples (as small as individual plant seeds), and gives results much more quickly. The development of radiocarbon dating has had a profound impact on archaeology. In addition to permitting more accurate dating within archaeological sites than previous methods, it allows comparison of dates of events across great distances. Histories of archaeology often refer to its impact as the "radiocarbon revolution". Radiocarbon dating has allowed key transitions in prehistory to be dated, such as the end of the last ice age, and the beginning of the Neolithic and Bronze Age in different regions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
80
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,295.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
C-14 dating is good to about 50,000 years ago and is only useful with samples that were once alive. As with most scientific measurements there is a range of uncertainty and generally speaking the older the sample the greater the range of uncertainty. With a sample of 14,400 years the uncertainty would typically be plus or minus several centuries.
 
Upvote 0

majj27

Mr. Owl has had quite enough
Jun 2, 2014
2,120
2,835
✟82,705.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
C-14 dating is good to about 50,000 years ago and is only useful with samples that were once alive. As with most scientific measurements there is a range of uncertainty and generally speaking the older the sample the greater the range of uncertainty. With a sample of 14,400 years the uncertainty would typically be plus or minus several centuries.

If I'm not mistaken, on a given dating they generally produce a range of one standard deviation from the mean as the age range, and most folks use the mean as the age, even if it's just the most statistically likely midpoint of the range.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: JackRT
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
This question is for a Christian who is knowledgeable about carbon dating. It requires that the person responding has detailed knowledge of how carbon dating is done and its nuances.

Note the article in the link below, it states that particles of bread were found to be 14,400 years old by carbon dating. So the question is, how accurate is carbon dating, and is there something that is fundamentally wrong with it or how it is done, and what would that be?

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/daily-life-and-practice/ancient-bread-jordan/?mqsc=E3975684&utm_source=WhatCountsEmail&utm_medium=BHDWeek in Review Newsletter&utm_campaign=ZE8A72Z40

TD:)
First let's understand that no one has actually tested the half-life of any isotope. I think everyone will agree that no one has tested a sample for 5,730 years to confirm this is indeed correct.

Carbon-14 tests give results all over the chart as does every other decay test.


They are all totally unreliable because nobody knows the starting Parent and daughter isotope concentrations. There are 5 to 7 assumed conditions depending on the type of test. None of these conditions can be proven experimentally or by observation.

EDIT: and no, before somebody whines.... I do not believe in a young earth.....
 
  • Winner
Reactions: DavidFirth
Upvote 0

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
80
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,295.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
I'm no expert but I think carbon dating is a wild guess at best. I also think the guesses are very wrong.

Carbon dating has been tested against samples of known age going back to about 10,000 years. This and other dating methods give dates which are remarkably close:

*Uranium to Lead --- minerals --- 1M to 4.5B years

*Rubidium to Strontium --- minerals --- 60M to 4.5B years

*Potassium to Argon --- minerals --- 10K to 3B years

*Uranium Series Disequibrium --- minerals, shell, bone, teeth, coral --- 0 to 0.4M years

*Carbon 14 --- minerals, shell, wood, bone, teeth --- 0 to 40K years

*Fission Track --- minerals, natural glass --- 0.5M to 1B years

*Thermoluminsecence --- minerals, natural glass --- 0 to 0.5M years

*Electron Spin Resonance --- minerals, teeth, shell, coral --- 1K to 1M years

*Geomagnetic Polarity --- minerals --- 0.8M to 200M years

*Amino Acid Racemization --- shells, other biocarbonates --- 500 to 0.3M years

*Obsidian Hydration --- natural glass --- 500 to 0.2M years

*Dendrochronology --- tree rings --- 0 to 12K years

*Lichenometry --- lichens --- 100 to 9K years

These and other dating technologies are remarkably consistent with each other. Each of course has its own limitations and like any scientific measurement or calculation each has a range of possible error which is carefully calculated.
 
Upvote 0

chuckpeterson

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 19, 2018
546
204
58
texas
✟134,252.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
They are all totally unreliable because nobody knows the starting Parent and daughter isotope concentrations.

The only thing that would be incontestable is a certified birth certificate.

lol
 
Upvote 0

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
80
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,295.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
First let's understand that no one has actually tested the half-life of any isotope. I think everyone will agree that no one has tested a sample for 5,730 years to confirm this is indeed correct.

Actually I have done just that. It does not require that a sample be observed for the full half life if you have accurate instruments to work with.
 
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,592
66
Northern uk
✟561,189.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I can't speak for that example, but when organic materials are involved it can give wild errors. Mummys have been dated Centuries younger than their wrappings.

There are also a lot of fudge factors. Take for example diet correction is needed to determine skeletal ages. Fish diets cause substantial errors, because of sea isotopes. So it can give " fishy" answers.

Then of course is the shroud. Now dated by several physiochemical tests to first century , with proper error bands ( fanti) , RC gave answers a millennium out.

I will look...

This question is for a Christian who is knowledgeable about carbon dating. It requires that the person responding has detailed knowledge of how carbon dating is done and its nuances.

Note the article in the link below, it states that particles of bread were found to be 14,400 years old by carbon dating. So the question is, how accurate is carbon dating, and is there something that is fundamentally wrong with it or how it is done, and what would that be?

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/daily-life-and-practice/ancient-bread-jordan/?mqsc=E3975684&utm_source=WhatCountsEmail&utm_medium=BHDWeek in Review Newsletter&utm_campaign=ZE8A72Z40

TD:)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟336,823.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
  • Like
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

dqhall

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 21, 2015
7,547
4,171
Florida
Visit site
✟766,603.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I can't speak for that example, but when organic materials are involved it can give wild errors. Mummys have been dated Centuries younger than their wrappings.

There are also a lot of fudge factors. Take for example diet correction is needed to determine skeletal ages. Fish diets cause substantial errors, because of sea isotopes. So it can give " fishy" answers.

Then of course is the shroud. Now dated by several physiochemical tests to first century , with proper error bands ( fanti) , RC gave answers a millennium out.

I will look...
Early efforts to use C-14 dating were inaccurate as scientists did not take into account fluctuations in atmospheric C-14 concentrations that occurred over time. With newer calibrated dating, the results have been more accurate. When there are multiple carbon samples from an archaeological site for C-14 dating, pottery dating, coin dating, tree ring dating and so forth, a scientist might have a chance of dating the layers of the site. There are occasional contaminated C-14 samples. There were instrument and technician errors, yet C-14 is considered a reliable isotope dating procedure within a degree of accuracy that might be within a few centuries in some cases.

Pottery Neolithic A layers of ancient Jericho are dated to over 9000 years old. It advertised itself as the oldest city in the world. The title may be contested, but the city is older than many. It is very far below sea level, near the lowest spot on earth, the Dead Sea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

Strathos

No one important
Dec 11, 2012
12,663
6,531
God's Earth
✟263,276.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Accurate to within several centuries for organic residue up to 50,000 years old. The older the sample is, the less accurate the results will be.

There are many other types of scientific dating that are better suited for different circumstances.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ViaCrucis
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,462
26,892
Pacific Northwest
✟732,419.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
This question is for a Christian who is knowledgeable about carbon dating. It requires that the person responding has detailed knowledge of how carbon dating is done and its nuances.

Note the article in the link below, it states that particles of bread were found to be 14,400 years old by carbon dating. So the question is, how accurate is carbon dating, and is there something that is fundamentally wrong with it or how it is done, and what would that be?

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/daily-life-and-practice/ancient-bread-jordan/?mqsc=E3975684&utm_source=WhatCountsEmail&utm_medium=BHDWeek in Review Newsletter&utm_campaign=ZE8A72Z40

TD:)

Carbon dating is reliable up to several tens of thousands of years, after about ~50,000 years (I think) it ceases to be reliable since the half-life of carbon-14 is such that after about 50,000 years all the remaining carbon will have already decayed into carbon-12 (carbon-12 is a stable isotope, whereas carbon-14 is slightly unstable, which is why it decays).

To use radiometric dating for older things, we have to use other methods such as Potassium-Argon dating and Uranium-Lead dating. Uranium-Lead dating lets us get a pretty good grasp on the age of even the oldest rocks on our planet, as we can measure the age of zircons (small crystals that can withstand heat and pressure, so that even if the surrounding rock has melted and cooled several times, the zircons can be dated to around their initial formation, even into the billions of years).

No singular dating method is used, instead scientists from across different fields utilize a number of dating methods, radiometric dating (such as those mentioned already), but in addition other methods include ice core dating and dendrochronology. For example ice core samples taken from Antarctica show hundreds of thousands of years of melting and freezing, as the core samples have countable layers. And these methods of dating are used together, which is why we can be reliably confident about the ages of things when applying different dating methods we get the same results.

This is why geologists were able to figure out that the earth must have been exceedingly ancient, at least by an order of millions of years; more precise ways to measure things has allowed us to go further than the geologists of the 18th and 19th centuries, but the scientific community has known the earth to be very old based on observational data for hundreds of years now.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DavidFirth

Saved by the blood of the Lamb
Site Supporter
Nov 8, 2017
7,852
18,257
North Georgia
✟47,035.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Carbon dating is reliable up to several tens of thousands of years, after about ~50,000 years (I think) it ceases to be reliable since the half-life of carbon-14 is such that after about 50,000 years all the remaining carbon will have already decayed into carbon-12 (carbon-12 is a stable isotope, whereas carbon-14 is slightly unstable, which is why it decays).

To use radiometric dating for older things, we have to use other methods such as Potassium-Argon dating and Uranium-Lead dating. Uranium-Lead dating lets us get a pretty good grasp on the age of even the oldest rocks on our planet, as we can measure the age of zircons (small crystals that can withstand heat and pressure, so that even if the surrounding rock has melted and cooled several times, the zircons can be dated to around their initial formation, even into the billions of years).

No singular dating method is used, instead scientists from across different fields utilize a number of dating methods, radiometric dating (such as those mentioned already), but in addition other methods include ice core dating and dendrochronology. For example ice core samples taken from Antarctica show hundreds of thousands of years of melting and freezing, as the core samples have countable layers. And these methods of dating are used together, which is why we can be reliably confident about the ages of things when applying different dating methods we get the same results.

This is why geologists were able to figure out that the earth must have been exceedingly ancient, at least by an order of millions of years; more precise ways to measure things has allowed us to go further than the geologists of the 18th and 19th centuries, but the scientific community has known the earth to be very old based on observational data for hundreds of years now.

-CryptoLutheran

Can you prove any of that? No, you can't. It's all either assumed or based on more assumptions.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,462
26,892
Pacific Northwest
✟732,419.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Early efforts to use C-14 dating were inaccurate as scientists did not take into account fluctuations in atmospheric C-14 concentrations that occurred over time. With newer calibrated dating, the results have been more accurate. When there are multiple carbon samples from an archaeological site for C-14 dating, pottery dating, coin dating, tree ring dating and so forth, a scientist might have a chance of dating the layers of the site. There are occasional contaminated C-14 samples. There were instrument and technician errors, yet C-14 is considered a reliable isotope dating procedure within a degree of accuracy that might be within a few centuries in some cases.

Pottery Neolithic A layers of ancient Jericho are dated to over 9000 years old. It advertised itself as the oldest city in the world. The title may be contested, but the city is older than many. It is very far below sea level, near the lowest spot on earth, the Dead Sea.

Jericho probably isn't the oldest city, but it can lay claim to the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world.

The oldest human structures on earth belong to Gobekli Tepe, and are about 12 thousand years old. They are older than the agrarian revolution.

-CryptoLutheran
 
  • Like
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,462
26,892
Pacific Northwest
✟732,419.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Can you prove any of that? No, you can't. It's all either assumed or based on more assumptions.

We know what the half-life of carbon-14 is, because we can directly measure it.
We can count the layers of ice in an ice core sample.
We can count the number of rings on a tree.

That isn't assumption, that is directly testable, observable fact.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

DavidFirth

Saved by the blood of the Lamb
Site Supporter
Nov 8, 2017
7,852
18,257
North Georgia
✟47,035.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
We know what the half-life of carbon-14 is, because we can directly measure it.
We can count the layers of ice in an ice core sample.
We can count the number of rings on a tree.

That isn't assumption, that is directly testable, observable fact.

-CryptoLutheran

Wrong. You leap from your evidence to fact far too quickly.

Have you observed Carbon-14 decay over decades, let alone millions of years? No.
Layers of ice prove nothing, really. And I doubt you have billions of them.
The number of rings in a tree. Hmm. How many millions of rings have you counted?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

bcbsr

Newbie
Mar 17, 2003
4,085
2,318
Visit site
✟201,456.00
Faith
Christian
I can't speak for that example, but when organic materials are involved it can give wild errors. Mummys have been dated Centuries younger than their wrappings.

There are also a lot of fudge factors. Take for example diet correction is needed to determine skeletal ages. Fish diets cause substantial errors, because of sea isotopes. So it can give " fishy" answers.

Then of course is the shroud. Now dated by several physiochemical tests to first century , with proper error bands ( fanti) , RC gave answers a millennium out.

I will look...
There may be contamination issues, but I would think those could be worked out.
 
Upvote 0