Like I said

According to . . .ehm . . wikipedia itself … . carbon dating cannot tell us if something is billions of years old.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating . . . .. . read it and weep . . . . 62,000 years tops. And you know what they use to deal with long ages? Well according to wikipedia . . tree rings . . hahaha.   also see

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/carbon-14.htm    50,000 years tops

 

4.5 billion years is obviously completely hypothetical . ..  with what little I know about the current dating of things almost nothing can be reliably or realistically dated past 1 million years (I’m being generous). Carbon dating is a far cry from being any kind of  exception to this rule. Nobody can actually calculate an age of 4.5 billion years (see above).

 

If you want to know why the limit is 50,000 years I believe the answer is best summed up on the following post

http://www.chacha.com/question/why-does-carbon-dating-only-work-too-50000-years-old

 

Carbon decays too quickly.  You’ve been had.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , ,

5 Responses to “Like I said”

  1. orandat Says:

    But it is not carbon-14 that is used to determine the age of the earth but certain isotopes of lead.

    Check this out: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

  2. cognitivediscopants Says:

    I’m not sure I understand the triumphal tone of your post. That carbon-dating is only used to date things up to roughly 50,000 years old is a well known fact. That’s why you found it on Wikipedia. Radiometric dating is used to date things that are millions or billions of years old. And we have no reason to doubt it’s accuracy.

  3. mike00000000001 Says:

    Ok . . . . on to radiometric dating then . . . to be continued I guess.

  4. mike00000000001 Says:

    Ok actually carbon dating IS a form of radiometric dating. We are talking about measuring things based on the rate at which isotopes form. Carbon dating is one know way of doing this that is NOT very dependable for long ages. So it remains only for me to investigate the other ways that radiometric dating might be done.

    • cognitivediscopants Says:

      Yes, carbon dating is also based on decay rates. It’s not the case that carbon dating isn’t “dependable” for long ages, it’s just not useful for long ages because it has such a short half-life. After 50-60,000 years, there is so little C-14 left that accurate measurement becomes very difficult. But it’s not as though the decay rate suddenly changes or the principle becomes unreliable. It would be like trying to tell the time with a sand-dial that has already run out of sand.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: