Read just about any textbook and watch about any movie and what do you hear?The universe and all of life began millions and billions of years ago.As I often say during Facebook arguments: link, or it didn’t happen. Our flagship program is called the Peer Revue, where we teach scientists to perform stand-up comedy then throw them on stage in front of a live audience.WYLONA But it has to be true, it says so on their wikipedia page. The older an organism's remains are, the less beta radiation it emits because its C-14 is steadily dwindling at a predictable rate.So, if we measure the rate of beta decay in an organic sample, we can calculate how old the sample is. Question: Kieth and Anderson radiocarbon-dated the shell of a living freshwater mussel and obtained an age of over two thousand years.Notice that something must have been alive to absorb C-12 and C-14.
This one is dedicated to Susan Gerbic and her team of wikipedia editors, fighting the good fight against facts claimed without references. You mean that somebody just made up all that stuff about them? Since last January we’ve been bringing science programming to bars, theaters, and comic cons in Colorado.
They have their work cut out for them, however, because radiocarbon (C-14) dating is one of the most reliable of all the radiometric dating methods.
This article will answer several of the most common creationist attacks on carbon-14 dating, using the question-answer format that has proved so useful to lecturers and debaters. Answer: Cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere are constantly converting the isotope nitrogen-14 (N-14) into carbon-14 (C-14 or radiocarbon).
This is all seemingly fine until you evaluate the assumptions that this system is built upon.
In order for the radiometric dating system to be accurate, the system would: a.) Need to be a closed system. That is, that the process was not or is not affected by any outside or inside influences. Since the establishment of the system, the decay or process rate has remained stable and unchanged.