ashlee simpson dating 2016 - Why dating of fossils is inaccurate
You can find some further good information here: -- read the full page if you get the chance.Since 1947, scientists have reckoned the ages of many old objects by measuring the amounts of radioactive carbon they contain.Y., reported today in the British journal Nature that some estimates of age based on carbon analyses were wrong by as much as 3,500 years.
In fact, 14C is forming FASTER than the observed decay rate.
This skews the 'real' answer to a much younger age.
And this big sequence is then used to 'correct' C14 dates. (3.) Even if the rate of decay is constant, without a knowledge of the exact ratio of C12 to C14 in the initial sample, the dating technique is still subject to question.
(4.) Traditional 14C testing assumes equilibrium in the rate of formation and the rate of decay.
by Helen Fryman Question: What about radiocarbon dating? Response: I asked several people who know about this field. (1.) C14 dating is very accurate for wood used up to about 4,000 years ago.
This is only because it is well calibrated with objects of known age.Dates up to this point in history are well documented for C14 calibration.For object over 4,000 years old the method becomes very unreliable for the following reason: Objects older then 4,000 years run into a problem in that there are few if any known artifacts to be used as the standard.In some cases, the latter ratio appears to be a much more accurate gauge of age than the customary method of carbon dating, the scientists said.In principle, any material of plant or animal origin, including textiles, wood, bones and leather, can be dated by its content of carbon 14, a radioactive form of carbon in the environment that is incorporated by all living things.We believe all the dates over 5,000 years are really compressible into the next 2,000 years back to creation.