Slashdot Mirror


Research Finds Carbon Dating Flawed

eldavojohn writes "New research funded by the National Science Foundation at the University of Miami is showing that carbon dating (the 13C/12C ratio used to infer age) in the ocean can only be trusted up to 150 million years ago. From the primary researcher, 'This study is a major step in terms of rethinking how geologists interpret variations in the 13C/12C ratio throughout Earth's history. If the approach does not work over the past 10 million years, then why would it work during older time periods? As a consequence of our findings, changes in 13C/12C records need to be reevaluated, conclusions regarding changes in the reservoirs of carbon will have to be reassessed, and some of the widely-held ideas regarding the elevation of CO2 during specific periods of the Earth's geological history will have to be adjusted.' While this research doesn't necessarily throw carbon dating out the window, it should cause people to rethink so many theories about early life that revolved around ages of sediment in the oceans."

5 of 625 comments (clear)

  1. Re:This has been known for some time by DrCJM · · Score: 5, Informative

    You're confusing 14C radiometric dating with 13C/12C isotopic ratio dating. There is no decay rate issue for 13C/12C dating - well, except maybe for theoretical proton decay!

  2. Re:Not news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The title "Carbon Dating Flawed" was a poor choice as there are at least 2 different carbon dating methods, and the most common and well-known, radiocarbon-14 dating, isn't affected by the finding.

  3. Best cure for fundamentalists: scripture. by copponex · · Score: 5, Informative

    You need to learn the bible for insight into much of western thought, but you should also learn it for the fun that can be had with it's biblically ignorant followers.

    First, ask them what the ten commandments are. This will trip 95% of them up and they'll walk away without bothering you. If they say that the commandments are not important, tell them you think the same about the rest of the Bible.

    Claim you don't believe in Yahweh because you don't believe in infanticide. They'll give you a strange look, and then ask them to read Psalm 137:9, which is in context, Jews daydreaming about smashing their enemies' infants to pieces.

    Ask them if they eat lobster, or if there's a girl in the group, if they wear pants. If they say yes, ask them why they support the homosexual agenda, since all three are abominations according to the bible.

    They will go to great lengths to explain away why what they do or don't is covered by some painful translation-based loopholes, and what everyone else does is what's really wrong. This is the basic definition of a hypocrite, which concerns my favorite scripture:

    'As he taught, Jesus said, "Watch out for the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and be greeted in the marketplaces, and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely.'

    Don't get me wrong, the world would be a great place of everyone followed the advice of Jesus, but most of them have never read more than ten pages of their Holy Book.

  4. Re:Title by DrCJM · · Score: 5, Informative

    In spite of such evidence, evolution believing geologists build models based on today's observed rates of change and expect these to produce reliable results reaching back millions or billions of years.

    Allow me to interrupt you there...

    The geological observations that lead to the model of a multi-billion year old earth were made by creationist geologists. Many before the theory of evolution had been proposed.

    This is one of the minor errors in your contribution. The accuracy and 'linearity' of radiometric dating has been demonstrated (both theoretically and experimentally) and confirmed beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt - your beliefs notwithstanding. Please learn something about the history of geology, evolution and the philosophy of science before commenting on them again.

  5. Re:Now get this, creationists by Gandalf_the_Beardy · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is NOT carbon dating. The title is exceedingly confusing. C-14 is radiocarbon dating - good for 50,000 years back - 100,000 years with very good equipment. To date this sort of age you would need something like uranium lead, lead-lead techniques. These are accurate to a percent or so out to billions of years. The C12/C13 ratio is purely used as an indicator of how fast plants are growing and how abundant CO2 is at that time. It is NOT used for dating.