What are the pros and cons of Carbon dating? | Yahoo Answers
Radiocarbon dating is reliable up to years, shaky at best up to years anti-liberty, anti-property, hedonistic, anti-Constitution, pro-Marxist, pro-Islam. radiometric-dating-pros-and-cons: radiometric dating pros and cons. Pro. Radiocarbon dating is accurate since it measures the constant decay of the Con. In this round, I will point out why radiocarbon dating is an inaccurate.
Many sea creatures such as foraminifera, coccoliths algaecorals, diatoms and shellfish rely on secreting calcite taken from seawater molecules to form their shells and structures.
When these organisms die their calcareous shells normally fall to the bottom of the ocean, there they mix with silts to form sediments. Bones, teeth and beetle shells also calcite can also be analysed using isotopes. As many marine organisms process CO2 one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms and calcium ions to make the calcite that forms their shells they prefer the lighter C isotope with 6 protons and 6 neutronsthese remains can be analysed to determine past temperatures using the oxygen isotopes they contain.
How Accurate is Carbon Dating?
Oxygen has two stable isotopes, O and O Most oxygen is O The O isotope is two neutrons heavier than O and less susceptible to evaporation than O O molecules require more energy than O molecules to change from its liquid state to a gas state. When the oceans warm, much more O evaporates leaving behind greater ratios of O This helps identify changes in the temperature of the oceans.
These isotopes are also in rainwater and therefore in the surface water that animals drink and that helps form soils etc. Cold seawater can hold more dissolved oxygen than warm seawater can.
How Accurate is Carbon Dating? Labmate Online
These help identify changes in the temperature of the oceans. From this the temperatures of ancient rain and oceans can be determined. Greenhouse gas concentrations can also be ascertained from Carbon Isotopes.
Methane has low amounts of C but high amounts of C If foraminifera open water samples record the drop in C before the benthic bottom dwelling life forms, it suggests CO2 invaded the oceans from the atmosphere also indicating high concentrations.
Scientists can also tell a lot about the acidity of the oceans from Isotopes. It is the generation of hydrogen ions or protons that leads to the lowering of oceanic pH and increase in acidity.
What are the pros and cons of radioactive dating?
Ocean acidification starts at the surface and spreads down to the depths as surface waters mix with deeper layers. So very old things may not be measured at all, and younger things may not be measured with precision. Aging anything on Earth in the hundreds of thousands of years, or in the millions or beyond, involves little more than educated conjecture.
Another word for conjecture is a guess. A Guess never rises above the level of being a guess, no matter how scientific, no matter how educated, no matter how much consensus it enjoys, no matter how well it "fits" any popular hypothesis.
We cannot know with any certainty the age of most of the geological strata that is available to man for viewing.
I would still, however tentatively, tend to agree with a given, millions-of-years-old, Earth strata-age that enjoys near unanimous scientific support. Because I can't come up with a better scientific guess than they can, and it's their field, not mine. The real problem in this situation lies in trying to determine if the proponents of the given strata-age are real scientists, or merely disciples of the faith of Scientism, play-acting at being real scientists.
The only way to do that is to listen very carefully to their words, and how they state their case. When you hear a TV scientist on PBS, or on the History Channel, or on the Discovery Channel, or a teacher in a classroom, saying things like, today, we can accurately measure the age of earthly strata, you should know that what you are listening to is clear falsehood.
It might have started out as more of a little fib than a flagrant lie, but over time it has taken on the respectable aura of clear and overwhelming consensus among the educated elite, world wide. It has the near unanimous support of all of the fellows of TTRSTF4who will harrumph about it and support what, when pressed, they will refer to as conjecture, because the term conjecture sounds so much more scientific than the term very popular wild assed guess.
In general, if a proposed conjecture regarding the age of a rock or a radioactively-dead fossil or a strata layer supports a given scientistic dogma, then that conjecture will enjoy immediate, unchallenged, and near unanimous support from the recognized scientific community.
Nevertheless, there is such a thing as a real scientist, and real science is still being done. It is most usually done very quietly.