radiometric dating fossils

How is the carbon-14 used in radiometric dating in fossils?

I need to know now.

It isn’t very often, at least not directly.

14C is only good back to 50,000 years or so, and only good for things that contain carbon (most fossils don’t)

For a good overview of dating techniques (and incidentally a rebuttal of theological and pseudo-scientific objections to them), by a former Los Alamos physicist, see

Wiens, R.C. (2002). Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective,
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/WIENS.html

If ink doesn’t work, cut and paste and join up

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/

resources/WIENS.html

Using M & M’s to Demonstrate Radiometric Dating

dating fossils

What radiometric dating techniques are used to date human fossils?

I am already aware of Carbon-14 Dating. What are the dating techniques available for dating human fossils that are older than 50,000 years?

Actually, radiocarbon dating is accurate out to about 60,000 years, 75,000 for scientists who really push it (they push it because the C-14 margin of error is very small). Archaeologists consider it good enough to be considered an absolute dating technique due to the a fore mentioned reasonably small margin of error.

Still, the earliest known fossils of modern humans are about 200,000 years old. Hominid fossils, representing ancestral human species, are even older. In the cases of the 200,000 old fossils, potassium-argon radiometric dating is used.

Finally, genetic investigations are used to follow the development of our ancestral hominid species, though this genetic data can be very difficult to come by.

Dating the oldest fossils

carbon dating kids

Is there evidence of evolution?

I don’t want anyone to put down creationists or there to be a debate on evolution. All I want is evidence of evolution… Please don’t tell me about bones because all bones mean is something died you have no evidence other than something died(meaning you can’t say something came from it). The fossil record doesn’t exist anywhere in the world so do not use that. It’s only told to kids in the text books, so please don’t refer to it. Carbon dating is not constant, people have dated things twice and gotten totally different answers, so please don’t use that either. I want evidence.

Thank you.

Sir, I am sorry to tell you there is no evidence of evolution, no matter how hard you look:

Embryonic recapitulation is not a rerun of man’s evolution. An embryo does not have “gill slits”. What looks like “gill slits” don’t even develop into respiratory organs. It develops into part of the inner ear and the thyroid gland.

Natural selection and evolution cancel each other out. Take the bat. Supposedly it developed from a shrew like creature. But in part of its evolution, it would have huge webbed feet and tiny back feet. It would have echolocation but wouldn’t be able to use it. Its kind would die out. Where did natural selection go? It sure wasn’t the fittest.

Or take a reptile evolving into a bird. Just their respiratory tracts are amazingly different. Reptiles breathe into their lungs, birds breathe through them. Bird have air sacs, a four chambered heart (reptiles have no air sacs and a three chambered heart, except the croc), and hollow bones. So um, how did the heart and lungs still function as each little step took place?

Evolutionists say comparitive anatomy proves evolution. But it actually shows an Intelligent Creator. He just used the same blueprints for mammels, for reptiles, for birds, and varied them so they could live in their climate. Look at cars. All vehicles usually have for wheels, a trunk, an engine, and windows. But the car varies for the consumer. We know it had an intelligent designer. But we don’t leap out of our car at the sign of a three wheeled car and say it evolved. Wait…I think my car may be showing signs of an H3…..

Punctuated equilibrium doesn’t solve the problem either. Genetic variety has limits. I’m so glad my grandparents didn’t have a Clinton. Now that would be way out of a human’s genetic possibility! But seriously. No dinosaur had a bird hatch out of it’s egg. And that’s no duck!

Well that’s just a bit to get you started.

(Also, I think this guy should be voted president–of Molly Brown’s pool floats.)

Carbon Dating

carbon 14 dating fossils

Why is carbon-14 dating not used for dating dinosaur bones/fossils?

Please just facts on why it cannot be used for dating dinosaur bones/fossils.

Two reasons:

1. As others have said, carbon dating can only go back so far. The half-life of carbon-14 is about 5,700 years, which makes it only accurate for dating objects to about 60,000 years old. Anything older than that has too little carbon-14 left to get an accurate reading.

2. Carbon dating only works on once-living tissue. (It is based on the fact that living things take on carbon atoms from the atmosphere while they are alive, but stop taking on new carbon atoms when they die … whereupon the carbon-14 decays away at a known rate.) Fossils are not once-living tissue. Fossils are not bones. Fossils are made of the rock that fills in the impressions left by bones that have decayed away.

For these reasons, we use other forms of radiometric dating (not carbon dating) for fossils and rocks.

14. Carbon Dating 1 . Fossils . Radiometric Dating . Nitrogen . Uranium . [DVD 7, 39:43-49:43]

carbon dating flaws

Is the method of carbon dating flawed?

From what I understand, it makes the assumption that the ratio of 12C and 14C in the atmosphere has been constant since about 30000years after the earth formed. But in fact this ratio is not constant. Is my understanding just plain wrong?

<>

No.

<>

No such assumption is made. Firstly, the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere prior to about 50,000 years ago is irrelevant to carbon-dating, seeing as any specimens would contain too little of the stuff for it to be accurately assessable. That has to do with the length of the half-life of C-14.

Secondly, it’s not assumed the amount of atmospheric C-14 over the last fifty thousand years has been constant. It’s known to have fluctuated, and those fluctuations are taken into account, and have been for the last five decades.

<>

Largely, yes. It sounds as if you may have been relying on mis-information peddled by people who know nothing much about carbon-dating; eg. creative young Earth creationists in their various guises.

Radiometric Dating Flaws (Potassium-Argon)

dating christian perspective

What is your view of online dating websites from a Christian perspective?

Anything else you would like to add?

Personally, I’m just not into that, but I have a few friends who are in successful relationships/marriages who met their significant others online. If you are thinking about joining a dating site, I would suggest something like eHarmony. This site is pretty safe, and it goes into great depths in finding people you are compatible with.

Kevin Ellerbe Sex Dating & Relationships Part 1

carbon 14 dating problems

Need help with Carbon-14 dating problem.?

Old wood has 12 counts per minutes.
New wood has 768 counts per minute.
If half life of carbon-14 is 5730 year, what is the age of the old wood.

Please explain and break it down for me.
Many thanks!

If the count would have been 768/2=384 then the wood would have been one half-life or 5730 years old.

But the factor between the two counts is not two, but 768/12=64=2^6.

So the old wood has an age of 6 half-lives, that is 6*5730 = 34,380 years old.

Nuclear physics (2)

radiocarbon dating fossils

How can we be sure of the age of extremely old fossils? Radiocarbon dating is only accurate to 60,000 years?

I asked in this question how scientists knew that Amoebas evolved 2 billion years after the earliest life forms:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Arn1WLXeBYEYtFm7k1NO7VPsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20070910134244AAEVHks

Alot of the answers said it was from fossil evidence…

But I have to ask how are these fossils dated? Is it Carbon-14 dating? Because we’re talking about fossils supposedly billions of years old… how do we know this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating#Computation_of_ages_and_dates

Well, we are never sure. We just have the best conclusion we can draw from the evidence.

There are other forms of dating that work well beyond the age at which C-14 dating no longer works.

Below is a really good article about radiometeric dating.

I think that some of the evidence about fossil evolution comes from molecular clock data: that is, we use fossils and DNA to tell us how long it takes to accumulate a certain number of DNA changes, and then we figure out how many relavent changes there are between amoebas and other organisms, and we extrapolate how long ago the last common ancestor was.

Evidence of evolution from fossil record

over 40 dating free

What site has free chat, free profile set up and messaging, for people interested in dating. I am 40 yrs. old?

I am a male seeking a female at least 36 yrs old and not married, and up to 50.

Generally, I’d stick to one of the big players as there are more members and so hopefully a better chance of meeting someone great. You can go for a free site, but then there do seem to be more timewasters on there than on the subscription sites.

I found this site when I was looking last year and they have links to free trials so you can try out all of the ones you can without paying anything:

http://www.mydatinggenie.com/Free_Trials.html

(Free Video) Hot Dating Expert: How to win the Game of Dating

dating violence facts

What could be done to end the violence and make the world a better place for our children.?

I am a conservative republican that would really like to hear peoples opinion on what the think it would take to at least slow down the violence that is aimed at country’s interests around the world. After sept 11th happened everyone seemed to be riding high on emotions of what happend and seemed to be on a lot more common ground on the fact that these people needed to be delt with harshly and swiftly. The futher away we drift from that date the more people’s point of view on this subject change. the Iraq war is a stirring debate on whether we should have went in or not, and I am a little torn on my view of this because I still think that even though George Bush has made some mistakes, I believe he a decent human being and thought he was doing what was right to protect this country. War is not always the answer that, but somtimes it is unavoidable that was proven in WWII. I dont think these extremists have any interest in peace of any kind. Would like to hear some thoughts

If the Leaders of the United States of America were to unite against those who wish to do the U.S. harm it would send a strong message to the proxy Countries that are Aiding the enemy.No Country on Earth wants to fight a United United States Of America.The best way to get this point across is to phone ,E-Mail or wright your State Reps. and Senators.Do the same to the Liberal media who refuses report Sucsess’for the U.S.

PSA: Stop Teen Dating Violence

Next Page »