radiation dating

[ColdShotStrat]

who knows about it? im interested in the topic and was wondering if anyone knew anything about it. is another name for it carbon-14 dating?

[PerpetualBurn]

Carbon-14 dating refers to a specific kind of radioactive dating.

Basically, a certain percentage of naturally occurring carbon is isotope 14, which is radioactive. Living organisms are carbon based and therefore all living things contain this percentage of carbon-14.

When an organism dies, it stops processing carbon (from food) and using it, so the carbon-14 is no longer "refreshed". Because we know how long carbon-14 takes to decay, and how much should be in an organism at the time it dies, we can work out from the percentage left over how long it has been dead.

There are other forms of radioactive dating, but carbon-14 is the one people usually talk about (often simply as "carbon dating" to be completely obvious.

No doubt someone will add more detail or point out a hair out of place in my brief, over-simplistic explanation, but that's about it for the basics.

[Katana]

I was told that it is false, because the Shrould of Turin was dated as only 700 years old by Carbon-14 dating. If Carbon-14 dating is reliable, it should be 2000 years old, duh.


lol.

[PerpetualBurn]

Haha. That's actually amazing.

[Riva]

Originally Posted by PerpetualBurn

Carbon-14 dating refers to a specific kind of radioactive dating.

Basically, a certain percentage of naturally occurring carbon is isotope 14, which is radioactive. Living organisms are carbon based and therefore all living things contain this percentage of carbon-14.

When an organism dies, it stops processing carbon (from food) and using it, so the carbon-14 is no longer "refreshed". Because we know how long carbon-14 takes to decay, and how much should be in an organism at the time it dies, we can work out from the percentage left over how long it has been dead.

There are other forms of radioactive dating, but carbon-14 is the one people usually talk about (often simply as "carbon dating" to be completely obvious.

No doubt someone will add more detail or point out a hair out of place in my brief, over-simplistic explanation, but that's about it for the basics.

That's pretty much spot on. Most radioactive dating is a ratio process, by comparing the amounts of different isotopes of a certain element. The type of dating is determined by the estimated age of the element. For a 100 million year old fossil, it'd be better to use an element with a long half-life, etc.

It's quite an interesting field, with elements of it found in most sciences, like Metallurgy, Geology, Biology, Hydrology, etc.

[LittlePound]

Originally Posted by PerpetualBurn

Carbon-14 dating refers to a specific kind of radioactive dating.

Basically, a certain percentage of naturally occurring carbon is isotope 14, which is radioactive. Living organisms are carbon based and therefore all living things contain this percentage of carbon-14.

When an organism dies, it stops processing carbon (from food) and using it, so the carbon-14 is no longer "refreshed". Because we know how long carbon-14 takes to decay, and how much should be in an organism at the time it dies, we can work out from the percentage left over how long it has been dead.

There are other forms of radioactive dating, but carbon-14 is the one people usually talk about (often simply as "carbon dating" to be completely obvious.

No doubt someone will add more detail or point out a hair out of place in my brief, over-simplistic explanation, but that's about it for the basics.

it's not just for dead creatures though, they use it to tell how old certain rocks are, and remains of old cultures, etc. etc. etc. It's supposed to be pretty unreliable from what i hear.

[ringworm]

A couple of usefull links
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/carbon14.shtml

First, the carbon 14 dating method measures the time since a living organism has died. Thus, it is useless for measuring anything that has never been alive, such as a rock.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/cardat.html

[PerpetualBurn]

It's supposed to be pretty unreliable from what i hear.

The only people I've ever heard argue this had an underlying (or blatantly obvious) Christian agenda. Carbon dating is pretty accurate.

[Otherside]

Originally Posted by PerpetualBurn

The only people I've ever heard argue this had an underlying (or blatantly obvious) Christian agenda. Carbon dating is pretty accurate.

Pretty much. I don't see how it could be hugely inaccurate, it's a mathmatical process not a guessing game.

[Atomic Rain]

Carbon dating is extremely accurate when you're osquirreling centuries and not, like, days.

I saw this guy make another turin shroud using some middle age chemicals

It was pretty cool

[neal_672]

Originally Posted by PerpetualBurn

The only people I've ever heard argue this had an underlying (or blatantly obvious) Christian agenda. Carbon dating is pretty accurate.

Well, that pretty much sums up why LittlePound thinks that then...

[Wolf-]

Originally Posted by LittlePound

it's not just for dead creatures though, they use it to tell how old certain rocks are, and remains of old cultures, etc. etc. etc. It's supposed to be pretty unreliable from what i hear.

They examine fossiles and remains of things that used to live in the rock layers... if you don't find anything living, you can use K40 (I don't know what K is in English) or Uranium 238 isotopes to determine the age. Those two along with carbon14 (C14 method) are the three most commonly used.

[Der Übermensch]

it's not just for dead creatures though, they use it to tell how old certain rocks are, and remains of old cultures, etc. etc. etc. It's supposed to be pretty unreliable from what i hear.

Rocks, never having been alive, cannot be carbon-dated... Only the remains of living organisms can be.
I forget the precise half-life of Carbon-14, but it is considered to be very accurate to about 6,000-10,000 years ago, and moderatly accurate up to 50,000 years ago. Beyond that though, the difference in half-life cycles is too small to make anything more then a vauge guess...

[LittlePound]

Originally Posted by Wolf-

They examine fossiles and remains of things that used to live in the rock layers... if you don't find anything living, you can use K40 (I don't know what K is in English) or Uranium 238 isotopes to determine the age. Those two along with carbon14 (C14 method) are the three most commonly used.

Originally Posted by Das Übermensch

Rocks, never having been alive, cannot be carbon-dated... Only the remains of living organisms can be.
I forget the precise half-life of Carbon-14, but it is considered to be very accurate to about 6,000-10,000 years ago, and moderatly accurate up to 50,000 years ago. Beyond that though, the difference in half-life cycles is too small to make anything more then a vauge guess...

maybe i was getinng Carbon 14 and one of the otherones wolf mentioned mixed up with the whole "used on rocks thing." I had been wondering that myself, about how they dated rocks since rocks obviously aren't carbon based creatures but i dunno.

[Der Übermensch]

Just checked, and the half-life is 5730 years.

[PerpetualBurn]

Originally Posted by Wolf-

They examine fossiles and remains of things that used to live in the rock layers... if you don't find anything living, you can use K40 (I don't know what K is in English) or Uranium 238 isotopes to determine the age. Those two along with carbon14 (C14 method) are the three most commonly used.

K is potassium.

[Wolf-]

Thanks... got my chemistry lessons in another language than English

[Pikeymikey22]

Originally Posted by Katana

I was told that it is false, because the Shrould of Turin was dated as only 700 years old by Carbon-14 dating. If Carbon-14 dating is reliable, it should be 2000 years old, duh.


lol.

Yeah, that's what puzzled everyone for a while. It was discovered that the technique used caused a 1300-1400 year error, and really it's entirely possible that the shroud of Turin is 2000 years old.

Still, if it was proven (by more modern, more accurate techniques) that the shroud is indeed only 700 years old, then it proves that the cloth was not draped around Jesus after all. It wouldn't "falsify" carbon dating altogether, that's just plain ridiculous.

The error of over a thousand years may seem large, but it was an easy one to come by when you consider that it's only a 5th of Carbon 14's half life.

[PerpetualBurn]

Yeah, that's what puzzled everyone for a while. It was discovered that the technique used caused a 1300-1400 year error, and really it's entirely possible that the shroud of Turin is 2000 years old.

Lol.

The error of over a thousand years may seem large, but it was an easy one to come by when you consider that it's only a 5th of Carbon 14's half life.

Second lol.

[Wolf-]

Originally Posted by Pikeymikey22

Yeah, that's what puzzled everyone for a while. It was discovered that the technique used caused a 1300-1400 year error, and really it's entirely possible that the shroud of Turin is 2000 years old.

Still, if it was proven (by more modern, more accurate techniques) that the shroud is indeed only 700 years old, then it proves that the cloth was not draped around Jesus after all. It wouldn't "falsify" carbon dating altogether, that's just plain ridiculous.

The error of over a thousand years may seem large, but it was an easy one to come by when you consider that it's only a 5th of Carbon 14's half life.

There's an error in your thinking; wether it's a fifth or a fiftieth of carbon's half-life, it doesn't matter, since the technology is there to date stuff with a respectable. It's just maths... of course they tested carbon dating with objects whose age is known and it definately doesn't show 1000+years mistake. (eg the object is d0cumented in a book).