Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creative day
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 19 (40097)
05-14-2003 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Spud
05-14-2003 7:12 AM


quote:
This is a good artical carbon dating, and other forms
The rate of decay of 14C is such that half of an amount will convert back to 14N in 5,730 years (plus or minus 40 years). This is the 'half-life.' So, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years. Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old.
I'm not a world expert on carbon dating, but you'd think someone writing a scientific article would know that you can keep cutting something in half over and over again without ever running out of it.
------------------
-----------
Dan Carroll

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Spud, posted 05-14-2003 7:12 AM Spud has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by crashfrog, posted 05-14-2003 3:27 PM Dan Carroll has replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 19 (40104)
05-14-2003 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by crashfrog
05-14-2003 3:27 PM


quote:
Well, in the real world, eventually you're coming down to one half of an atom or something - way past the point where you could detect the radioisotope in question.
True. My problem was that the article implied that by the time you reach about 1/500th of the original sample there isn't any left, which simply isn't true. (I don't believe there are any samples that started with only 500 atoms.) I should have been clearer about that, though.
quote:
If you're going to try and argue the inaccuracy of radiodating
Um... I'm not.
-----------
Dan Carroll
[This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 05-14-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by crashfrog, posted 05-14-2003 3:27 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by crashfrog, posted 05-14-2003 4:10 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024