Is it foolish for someone to have unshakable faith in radiocarbon dating?

Servant of Jesus asked:

My biology professor yesterday said this:

“we are starting to find out radiocarbon dating is not as reliable as we once thought.”

and she is not a creationist…

I give it less than 2 years before they completely stop using this flawed method of dating.

What else do you guys have now? =]

It’s only a matter of time before the whole theory of evolution is a joke in the history books.

Create a video blog…instantly.

Share and Enjoy:

Tweet This Post

Comments (24) Posted in Religion & Spirituality

Subscribe RSS 2.0 feed. Leave a response, or Trackback from your own site.

Best Deal Ads :

24 Responses to 'Is it foolish for someone to have unshakable faith in radiocarbon dating?'

vérité - May 11th, 2009 at 10:38 am
Caffeinated Content

Scientists in general do not have “unshakable faith” in anything… that’s why they’re so successful. Get a grip.
claudiagiraffe - May 12th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
Caffeinated Content

I don’t know of anyone who has, “faith,” in reality. You need to go hit the books because if carbon dating doesn’t work, things like your microwave doesn’t work either.
Ophelia ? Vegan Princess ? - May 14th, 2009 at 8:00 am
Caffeinated Content

I think your biology ‘professor’ should stick to teaching facts and not his/her own opinion.
aeiou_11375 - May 16th, 2009 at 3:53 am
Create a video blog

When scientists date things, they use a variety of different methods. All these methods point to a window of when the item lived or was created.
twinkie kitteh! [atheati minion] - May 19th, 2009 at 3:12 am
Kansieo.com

oh, parody! haha?
Mary Jane LePlant - May 22nd, 2009 at 8:02 am
dating

It’s foolish to have blind faith in anything.
Science, religion, whatever.
Always question.
Nino F - May 24th, 2009 at 12:12 am
dating

Not as foolish as having faith in the bible.

And as with all scientific method, radiocarbon dating is constantly evolving and improving. Everyone involved knows that and is prepared for change. I can safely assume your quoting out of context….
Watev - May 27th, 2009 at 6:40 am
Kansieo.com

“It’s only a matter of time before the whole theory of evolution is a joke in the history books.”

And replaced with what? Simple “God did it!” explanations that no scientist finds valid? An ancient book that not everyone follows, one that accepts slavery, one that condemns homosexuals, one that says that bats are birds and that pi=3?

If you want a joke, realize just how foolish it is to believe that everything is explained in a few pages at the beginning of a book. The joke called Genesis, in other words.
The Christ Puncher - May 30th, 2009 at 9:22 am
Website content

Ahem… “Flawed” does not mean “useless.”

I’ll also fire a salvo on behalf of logic:

Fallacious appeal to authority.

Biology professors rarely if ever use radiocarbon dating.
terafloop - May 30th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Caffeinated Content

It would take a shitload of new evidence to completely undo EVERYTHING we have found out so far about the prehistory of the Earth. Even if radiocarbon dating turned out to not be 100% accurate and we found more things that shook up what we know a bit, there is no way we would suddenly discover that the creation myth of the ancient Hebrews was scientifically tenable. It’s absurd.

New information does not hurt science. This is not the first time we have modified the theories to fit new information and it will not be the last.
Rowan - June 1st, 2009 at 12:57 pm
dating

i think it is. Its been wrong before. i think the only way it can be reliably used is if someone watched something age, and carbon dated it.

All things break down and deteriorate differently. It would be silly to say a method created by man would be perfect.
Prolatrevol - June 3rd, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Kansieo.com

The theory of evolution isn’t based of radiocarbon dating.
Maurog II - June 6th, 2009 at 3:42 am
dating

I have heard one religious person admit the Bible is not 100% literal as we once thought. I give it less than 2 years before they completely stop using this flawed book.
PaulCyp - June 7th, 2009 at 4:34 am
Caffeinated Content

Radiocardon dating is one of about 20 different radiometric methods which corroborate one another. Welcome to the 21st Century.
Johnny Y - June 10th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Caffeinated Content

Hm… did God tell you this “2 years” bit? If he did, well, we ALL know that makes you completely correct!

*sigh*

Who is “we”? Is that statement peer-reviewed? In which scientific journal can I see that statement?
phyzzics - June 12th, 2009 at 3:24 am
Create a video blog…instantly.

There are about 6 other forms of dating. Nice try but science is quite thorough.

Please read:
apator123 - June 15th, 2009 at 6:19 am
Create a video blog…instantly.

It is foolish for anyone to have complete faith in anything that does not originate with God
(Titus 1:1-2) 1 Paul, a slave of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ according to the faith of God’s chosen ones and the accurate knowledge of the truth which accords with godly devotion 2 upon the basis of a hope of the everlasting life which God, who cannot lie, promised before times long lasting,
G(A)B(E) Liberal Heathen - June 17th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
Create a video blog…instantly.

And for you it is “Godidit”? That alternative is more than flawed.
Mim - June 19th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Create a video blog…instantly.

yes of course.
cosmo - June 22nd, 2009 at 5:31 am
Caffeinated Content – Members-Only Content for WordPress

Radiocarbon dating really has nothing to do with evolution, and the theory of evolution and the evidence for it do not depend on carbon dating.

Radiocarbon dating is a technique. It must be applied correctly, and it can be in error under some circumstances that are fairly well understood.
Winters - June 22nd, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Caffeinated Content

Your biology professor is right, and a little late. This started being discovered many years ago. This method is only 60 years old and subject to at least a few scenarios that can cause unreliability, such as the Suess affect and atom bomb testing. On top of it, it has limited application, given it is useful in dating back 45,000-60,000 years ago.

Is it foolish to put unshakable faith in such a thing? Of course it is, and highly illogical at that. Consider this: radiocarbon dating, just as anything concluded by science, is considered fact until new or different information is discovered – which can change or replace that fact.

Who in their right and logical mind would place unshakable faith in something that can shift?

God bless you.
Edg1 - June 25th, 2009 at 8:58 am
dating

Of course it is. Any form of decay dating is open to question and should not be presented as fact. Too many environmental factors that can skew the results. Gamma bursts, solar wild variations, radioactive iridium from meteoric impacts and so on.
Gene W - June 26th, 2009 at 3:25 am
Kansieo.com

radiocarbon is not only outdated, it’s been wrong from the start.
no dating of fossils is possible, or reliable.
check out

icr.org
evloution-facts.org
kjv1611.org
electroprayer - June 27th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Create a video blog…instantly.

I believe all radioactive dating is OK as long as you keep it in it’s intended range. Kind of like using a meter stick. You can measure a few meters with it, or maybe a few centimeters. But it isn’t accurate measuring say 20 kilometers, or 50 microns.