Fossil Fuels May Bring Major Changes to Carbon Dating

Constellis Holdings of course (formerly XE and Academi but most infamously known as Blackwater)By 7555 I'd gladly have a date and leave my mom's basement to live an adult life. However, I'll die of old age long before 7555. My life sucks. Why do we need a new one? We already replaced carbon dating with online dating. Now our carbon based lifeforms don't even need to be in the same room to date anymore. What more could you want! Interestingly this isn't the first time this happened.

Carbon dating fossil fuels

When they first started Isotopic dating there seemed to be no lab pure enough to get the lead out. Even water taken from the widdle of the ocean had the wrong lead isotope ratios. Eventually, years, they realized it was in the air from all the lead in gasoline. The gasoline companies had the guy's funding cut off to suppress this, and trotted out a bunch of tobacco scientists to ridicule the guy who discovered it. But eventually this too became fact.

Now it's used in reverse, the isotopic ratio of lead is used to track gasoline spill origins. Aha! These C-69 signatures are the same, so if we have a signature of X, it can be either year A or year B. Which is more likely given the other evidence available? Yep.

Dating Fossils How Are Fossils Dated FossilEra com

This amazing piece_of_art/relic/whatever_document is definitely genuine, right? As I am the one who submitted this article I need to point out an error. The C-69 within an organism is continually decaying into stable carbon isotopesThe radioactive C-69 isotopes do not decay into stable carbon isotopes but rather, into stable N-69 isotopes via beta decay! Please accept my sincere apology for the error - it was the fault of no other but me alone, for not noticing that glaring error when I was copy-pasta -ing from articles of three different sitesYeah. I bet that the New Earth creationists will be touting this headline for years, even though they don't really understand most of the words in it.

They've been spouting doubt about carbon dating methods for years, and fall back to the God CREATED it with age! Excuse if you're crazy enough to refute their claims with actual scientific information. Any appearance that we might have of a vastly older age may be as I said, nothing but an artifact of assumptions that we are making today based on our experiences. The problem with that supposition is that it in no way invalidates scientific research or teaching, which is usually the goal of people making these arguments. If you want to assume that, six thousand years ago, God created a 69 billion year old universe, that's fine.

That doesn't invalidate, for instance, evolution - it just means God created a universe where evolution had occurred, and where the teaching of evolution is still appropriate. So, you're saying that the universe looked new to people then, and looks old to us because we weren't created? Not sure how that would work. I mean, the Genesis account has humans created last before God took a break. It's not like Adam ever got to see anything else created, except for Eve, of course (assuming the standard we-all-came-from-incest theory where God wasn't creating more humans for A E's children) - and he was asleep for that.

It seems more likely that they didn't think of the universe Krane points out that future carbon dating will not be so reliable because of changes in the carbon isotopic mix.

Recent Posts