Carbon dating - fact or fiction.

[Nlighten1]

Can anyone point me to a website that can adequately debunk carbon dating?

[Spinzonner]

1. If it's valid then any site that debunks it can't be adequate

[MrBenchley]

2. No, for the simple reason

that carbon dating is accurate....

[trotsky]

3. No

Because such a site does not exist.

Carbon dating is a legitimate form of dating organic material, so long as you take completely normal precautions (contamination, etc.).

[truthspeaker]

4. No, because carbon dating works.

The sites that attempt to debunk it either knowlingly use contaminated samples or try to use carbon dating for materials older or younger than the age range it works for.

[soothsayer]

5. why do you want to debunk it? I'm sure some anti-evolution sites would

have such links

[bob reynolds]

6. you're going to have trouble finding such debunkment..

too many aspects of modern science and world view are based on carbon dating...if it's inaccurate, people don't want to know

[aeolian]

14. That's not how science works

Every scientist's dream is to debunk a reigning theory and show everyone else how stupid they are.

If there were a problem with radioisotope dating, it would have been outed by now.

[Guy_Montag]

16. Hello & welcome to DU

:hi:

[chenGOD]

22. Stephe Jay Gould wrote a very interesting article about nonreporting of

results that were negative.

It's called "Cordelia's Dilemma" and you can find it in the book Dinosaur in a Haystack.

Not to say that what you're saying is not true, just your statement provoked that thought in my head.

[aeolian]

24. you're right

But that mostly pertains to people who are trying to protect their job, kiss up to the head of a department, protect their pet theory, or convince the FDA that the new wonder drug is perfectly safe.

Disproving radioisotope dating would completely overturn our understanding of the weak nuclear force. This, in turn, would net the disprover a lovely prize (possibly a Nobel), a tenured professorship, a fruit basket, yadda, yadda, yadda, why am I telling you what you already know?

(Good choice of reading material, might I add :) )

[trotsky]

15. Yeah right.

A lot of people didn't want to hear about quantum mechanics upsetting the beautiful classical laws of physics, but yet the truth won out. It always does in science.

If someone were able to prove carbon dating to be a farce, not only would they be lauded, they'd probably win a Nobel prize for overturning such a pillar of knowledge.

[benburch]

7. Debunk?

Some creationists try to debunk it, but it remains a valid method of dating organic materials. However, there are problems in extablishing the exact calibration of the C-14 "clock", and factors that can make it more or less accurate.

[northzax]

8. er, no

unless you'd like a website that debunks the general principles of physics and chemistry as we know them.

so if that's what you're looking for, try the Center for Scientific Creation http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ2.html#wp1303390

[pagerbear]

9. I've never dated carbon

...no matter what TerryA says!

[Beware the Beast Man]

10. Here's a good link:

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp
:P

[eyesroll]

17. Wow, this one doesn't even try to make sense.

I mean, most of them attempt to follow some sort of logical structure.

This one just...barfs words and pictures on to a page...

[Beware the Beast Man]

18. Chick rules

The Chickiverse is like this nightmare fantasy world where God secretly hates you, and everybody is a hyperbolic mess of a human being.

[eyesroll]

19. I prefer Brick Tracts...

http://www.thebricktestament.com/

[Blue-Jay]

25. Holy Crap! That's hysterical!

I'd like to encourage everyone to click on the "Second Circumcision" after visiting the above link. I laughed so hard, I farted.

[Bridget Burke]

11. No, because it hasn't been debunked.

Errors can creep in if care is not taken (as with any procedure). And other dating methods work better in some situations.

[phantom power]

12. If you choose to disbelieve carbon dating, then you also have to

disbelieve nuclear reactors, atom bombs, radiation-therapy, and for that matter pretty much all of physics, and therefore chemistry.

The validity of carbon dating arises from these same physical laws.

[aeolian]

13. <_<

No.

Or, at least, I can't point you to any reputable, scientific, or even moderately educated site to that effect.

[yellowcanine]

20. It can't be "adequately debunked because it isn't bunk. But the "creation

science" folks certainly try. The way your question is phrased suggests that you have decided it is bunk and are looking for evidence to support your position. Yhat may work for a debate but I hope you realize it is not science.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Christof]

21. You can't debunk it.

You'll never be able too.

As far as the accuracy of carbon dating, it makes a helluva lot more sense than creation theory.

[Nlighten1]

26. Lot's of replies...

Thanks but I'm having a "debate" with a fellow cube dweller. He is a fundy and believes that carbon-dating is crap.

Maybe I should as for a link that explains carbon-dating instead?