The problem I have, and many others scientists too, with carbon dating is that carbon dating is based on the assumption that carbon has stayed and was the same in the world so many many years ago. That's all I gots to say
That is why you take appropriate samples and several of them... There are also many types of radiometric dating that you can use and cross-reference to check that they independently give the same results.
So...what are we to discuss? The validity of Carbon Dating? It doesn't have to be the exact same as it was in the past. If so, we couldn't be able to record a single thing. Then there are other forms of dating that can go beyond that of Carbon Dating. C02 can last for a couple million years, whereas some of the tougher elements can last for billions.
And yes, like driejen stated, if you are not comfortable with one result, you can "check your answer" with different variables.
The problem I have, and many others scientists too, with carbon dating is that carbon dating is based on the assumption that carbon has stayed and was the same in the world so many many years ago. That's all I gots to say
driejen already said it but it's worth saying again there are many radiocarbon methods used that get cross referenced to determine the dates of things.
the assumption that carbon has stayed and was the same in the world so many many years ago
Do you have any information showing that is has not? I would be more than happy to see it if it's there, if it isn't than you're also jumping on the "assumption" bandwagon.
The problem I have, and many others scientists too, with carbon dating is that carbon dating is based on the assumption that carbon has stayed and was the same in the world so many many years ago
In case you don't know how it works, carbon dating deals with C14 - a radioactive isotope of carbon that degrades at a more-or-less constant rate, and it is not affected by chemical bonds.
This means that you can have organic material, such as that found in a tree, and if you find Nitrogen-14 where there should be Carbon atoms, you know that there the C14 released a beta particle (an electron), to convert it into N14.
So what you do is you look at the relative levels of Carbon 14 and Nitrogen 14, and you have done carbon dating! Congratulations.
Basically, because there are like 10^big number carbon-14 atoms, this process is much more accurate than people say it is.
Why? Why won't you at least look at the sight until you find some obvious fallacy? Give it a chance to suceed.
From the article
It may just be hard to discern what that harmony is right now.
The article says ... nothing. I skimmed it, and I didn't find any actual evidence - only speculation. It's like they're trying to use the evidence to support their point.
