What if carbon dating is wrong

A team of researchers from McMaster University has discovered a new technique to examine how musicians intuitively coordinate with one another during a performance, silently predicting how each will express the music.

Childcare can be expensive, stressful, and annoying to organise, but a University of Otago-led study has found it may also be behind religion's resilience. Separate skeletons suggested to be from different early hominin species are, in fact, from the same species, a team of anthropologists has concluded in a comprehensive analysis of remains first discovered a decade ago. It's January — a time when students are looking for that extra bit of oomph. For some, time spent on social media might provide the necessary inspiration to get up and exercising — but that time can come with consequences, A relative of modern humans that lived at least , years ago in northern China showed evidence of dental growth and development very similar to that of people today, a new study found.

How did the earliest land animals move?

Expertise. Insights. Illumination.

Scientists have used a nearly million-year old fossil skeleton and preserved ancient footprints to create a moving robot model of prehistoric life. Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute.

Climate change caused empire's fall, tree rings reveal May 15, Phys. Researchers examine how musicians communicate non-verbally during performance January 18, A team of researchers from McMaster University has discovered a new technique to examine how musicians intuitively coordinate with one another during a performance, silently predicting how each will express the music. Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank. Oh, gods, this is going to set off the creationists.

Radiometric Dating Debunked in 3 Minutes

Never mind that we're talking a difference of 20 years over the course of , they'll try to claim that this proves Adam lived with dinosaurs. Even dendrochronology is hocus-pocus. Look at the rings on that cross section.

Carbon Dating Gets a Reset

If you took a core in the four oclock position, you would find some broad rings in the center and then some very narrow rings, which you might compare with a similar reference sample and derive a date. But if you took a core in the eight oclock position, you would find broad rings and even wider rings, which may match to a completely different date. Same goes for dendro thermometers, as used by Prof Mann et al. Quite clearly the thickness of the rings has NOTHING to do with temperature, and so devising a temperature record from tree-rings is voodo-science.

The religious zealots will have a field day with this.

Carbon Dating Gets a Reset - Scientific American

So when you hear of a date of 30, years for a carbon date we believe it to be early after creation and only about 7, years old. If something carbon dates at 7, years we believe 5, is probably closer to reality just before the flood. Robert Whitelaw has done a very good job illustrating this theory using about 30, dates published in Radio Carbon over the last 40 years. One of the impressive points Whitewall makes is the conspicuous absence of dates between 4, and 5, years ago illustrating a great catastrophe killing off plant and animal life world wide the flood of Noah!

Related Stories

I hope this helps your understanding of carbon dating. If you have any more questions about it don't hesitate to write. I just listened to a series of lectures on archaeology put out by John Hopkins Univ.

Accessibility Navigation

The lecturer talked at length about how inaccurate C14 Dating is as 'corrected' by dendrochronology. The methodology is quite accurate, but dendrochronology supposedly shows that the C14 dates go off because of changes in the equilibrium over time, and that the older the dates the larger the error.

Despite this she continually uses the c14 dates to create 'absolute' chronologies. She says this is ok so long as you take into account the correction factors from dendrochronology. They conveniently forget to mention that the tree ring chronology was arranged by C14 dating. The scientists who were trying to build the chronology found the tree rings so ambiguous that they could not decide which rings matched which using the bristlecone pine.

So they tested some of the ring sequences by C14 to put the sequences in the 'right' order. Once they did that they developed the overall sequence.

Research illuminates inaccuracies in radiocarbon dating

And this big sequence is then used to 'correct' C14 dates. Talk of circular reasoning!!!! Even if the rate of decay is constant, without a knowledge of the exact ratio of C12 to C14 in the initial sample, the dating technique is still subject to question. Traditional 14C testing assumes equilibrium in the rate of formation and the rate of decay.