Radiocarbon dating is only accurate for objects
Desoto10 (talk) , 25 February 2011 (UTC) Where did that paragraph go? It is generally true that for any given sample eventually "the radiocarbon method will become less effective" if for no other reason than the usual 30,000 - 60,000 year fuzzy boundary of the technique's precision. For industrial revolution samples, we can worry about that in 30,000 years time.Generally there are problems with accounting for industrial effects, partly because of the unequal distribution of such effects around the globe. Carbon dating is beginning to be useful at around 200 radiocarbon years, which allows for use in industrial history.Mapping that counting error through the wiggle introduces bizarre changes to the bell-shaped curve - a problem known to specialists as "calibration stochastic distortion" (CSD). I actually wrote a paper discussing this for "Radiocarbon" (the scientific journal) with Mc Fadgen and Knox, gosh, nearly twenty years ago.Even for a simple plateau, where the curve doesn't actually reverse slope, the CSD effect is easily shown to be that a single radiocarbon date has a bimodal distribution of 'true' years B. In fact, if you want a reference to "A calibration curve must sometimes be combined with contextual analysis, because there is not always a direct relationship between age and carbon-14 content", you could do worse than look through back issues of "Radiocarbon".--Ryanincabo (talk) , 27 April 2010 (UTC)(UTC) Following your logic, a sample contaminated by newer material, ie by a recent flood, would appear to be younger than it actually is because it would receive a fresh infusion of carbon 14. Your argument also pre-supposes a global flood only a few thousand years ago.
Beyond them not getting the answer that they want from science, what are the grounds for concluding that there's a "controversy" here?Yes, the method has issues, but all scientific methods are imperfect, and its imperfections are not those touted by creationists. --Plumbago , 12 February 2007 (UTC)If what you say is true, that is is an article on only the scientific aspect of Radiocarbon dating, then I suggest it be renamed to "The science of radiocarbon dating", with a new article on radiocarbon dating pointing to it.However, as the article currently stands in size, I do not think a seperate article on the scientific aspects only is warranted. --Rebroad , 5 February 2007 (UTC) Please take a look at the discussion below.Creationist scientists have questioned its accuracy although none of their research has yet been subject to satisfactory peer review. The arguments made by creationists against radiometric dating methods are from simple physics and chemistry and directed against unprovable assumption made by those that use radiomatric dating methods to claim the age of objects.--.193 (talk) , 22 March 2011 (UTC) In the Bible, the Hebrew word used for "day" is "yohm", which often means different lengths of time, such as the length of time it takes for a season, which takes a few months - much longer than a 24 hour day.
Search for radiocarbon dating is only accurate for objects:
I do not understand why the information regarding the fact that there are groups that dispute the accuracy of carbon dating continues to be removed from this article. Many thanks, --Rebroad , 5 February 2007 (UTC) Removed: Carbon dating is extremely controversial amongst fundamental religious believers such as creationists.