Talk:Radiocarbon dating

Calibration Curve

I could not make any sense of the Calibration Curve graph, and what I did understand seemed to imply that raw radiocarbon dates overestimate actual age, which is the opposite of the truth. The graph and explanation may have been correct, but they were confusing to me. I made a new graph, based on a graph published in the new citation (same journal five years later). It is now less confusing, at least to me. Someone who knows more about this than I do should take a look at my changes. HowardMorland (talk) 14:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Upper Age Limit - Strange explanation

Under "Measurements and Scales"

"Samples older than the upper age-limit cannot be dated because the small number of remaining intrinsic 14C atoms will be obscured by 14C background atoms introduced into the samples while they still resided in the environment, during sample preparation, or in the detection instrument. As of 2007, the limiting age for a 1 milligram sample of graphite is about ten half-lives, approximately 60,000 years.[12] This age is derived from that of the calibration blanks used in an analysis, whose 14C content is assumed to be the result of contamination during processing (as a result of this, some facilities[12] will not report an age greater than 60,000 years for any sample)."

The way this is explained does not make much sense. Why is there only worry of contamination by "C14 background atoms" in samples older than the upper-age limit? Would not this same contamination affect any sample, regardless of age? For example,: a sample actually 5,000 years old being contaminated by an influx of background carbon atoms over that time, and thus dating much older.

Also the [12] Woods Hole reference to this statement is broken. 184.153.187.119 (talk) 02:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

There is only worry of contamination in especially old samples because in samples that are younger than the upper-age limit, the quantity of contaminating ¹⁴C atoms is negligible compared to the surviving genuinely ancient ¹⁴C in the object. Let me give you an example: say you've got an object containing 10,000 ¹⁴C atoms. Let's say also that it's gone through a single half-life (5,730 years). If it gets contaminated by one single ¹⁴C atom, the error margin is only 1 in 5,000, or 0.02%. Now, if we put that same 10,000-atom object through ten half-lives (57,300 years), that will leave it with only about 19 or 20 atoms of ¹⁴C. If a single ¹⁴C atom then contaminates it, the error margin is now around 1 in 20, or 5% (which is often taken as a conventional upper bound on statistical significance). Thefamouseccles (talk) 06:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

If a sample gets contaminated by more C14, then dating would show it to be younger, not older. And also, I agree with Thefamouseccles. It is a matter of precision. The older a sample is, the wider the precision range. Vmelkon (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

C14 Controversy

This article lacks information about the controversy surrounding C14 dating as already published on other websites and in reference books. See, for example, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible .

It lacks information on it because the controversy is not genuine. It's a bunch of liars and know-nothings thinking they understand, happily claiming there's a controversy when there is none.Farsight001 (talk) 14:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

You might want to read these two articles as well then: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v21/n3/dating-dillema and http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v22/n2/geology as well as the 28 footnotes including academic references provided for all three articles. After you've finished those, take a look also at http://trueorigin.org/dating.asp and then reply with something more credible than the unfounded attack you did last time. We should be able to agree that this Wikipedia article falls short of its true potential by ignoring scientific records, data and other facts highlighting a a credible and real controversy surrounding C14 dating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.164.103 (talk) 20:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I've read them already. They are written by the very people I was talking about in my first post above - a bunch of liars and know-nothings thinking they understand when they don't.Farsight001 (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

As an example of their idiocy, I refer you to the first article, where they say they sent a sample of a supposedly 200+million year old fossiliferous wood for C14 dating. Two big problems - real fossils have no carbon in them to C14 test with. Results would be, 100% of the time, due to contamination. Or, on occasion as creationists seem to enjoy doing, they will send in a processed and professionally preserved fossil with something like a polyeurothane sealant on the surface, in which case, the test would measure the sealant, not the sample. Second, C14, dating, as is well established by the scientific community, due to C14's decay rate, is only good up to about 60,000 years. After that, it will return gibberish results. So what moron thought it was a good idea to try to use it on something that's supposed to be 200 million years old? And what moron thought you could C14 date something without carbon in it? Only the people at AiG... Farsight001 (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

A lot of those "morons", as you call them, are professors and/or have PhD's. Look at your tone in your messages here; you are so incredibly aggressive and bitter. Doesn't that tell you something about the belief system you put your faith in? (Whether it be atheism or other). Oh, and here's another link for you which includes another long list of credible references in its 44 footnotes: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.166.141 (talk) 06:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

So what? A lot of stupid and ignorant people have schooling. That doesn't change the fact that they're being stupid and ignorant. And I've seen your other article too. It, also, is based on a complete ignorance of C14 dating. I'm not being aggressive or bitter. You're just failing to grasp the extent of their ignorance. Now if you have nothing to contribute to the article, please stop wasting our time.Farsight001 (talk) 12:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Arrogance and bullying are not virtues. I am contributing to the article by pointing out its key flaw as supported by numerous credible and scientifically supported articles written by experts in the field. Could you please cease this personal, vicious and bias attack which is in breach of Wikipedia's rules and is a reportable offense which has in the past led to attackers being suspended and banned. As evidenced herein, my proposition is supported by numerous credible sources such as: http://www.missiontoamerica.org/genesis/radiometric-dating.pdf for example. In your own words, "Now if you have nothing to contribute to the article, please stop wasting our time".

None of the links that you give are to reliable sources, there is no genuine controversy concerning radiocarbon dating (and why YECs concentrate on that rather than the myriad other radiometric dating techniques and things like surface exposure dating, which all give results consistent with each other, I've never really understood). I've moved this thread to the bottom of the page again as this is the norm for talk page discussions Mikenorton (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Snelling, geologist extraordinaire PhD, found fossil "branches" preserved in situ in limestone brimming with ammonites and belemnites. All of latter obviously point to a marine environment, so what kind of wood was it? Mermaid trees? Yet instead of questioning the nature of their supposed "wood" fossil, he instead questions the nature of everything else around the rock he thinks is fossil wood. Not only that, his fossil "wood" all serendipitously preserve original wood tissue, a monumental discovery which was apparently as pedestrian to the author as merely scratching away at a few rocks... if it was real. Indeed, he doesn't even remark on the uniqueness of his discovery, merely mentioning it offhand as if Triassic and Jurassic original wood tissue was an everyday occurrence. Why do I get the feeling that Snelling either dug out some old but quite recent remnants of plant roots, if they were even plant material at all, or has deliberately been contaminating his specimens for the single-blind experiments. The latter depends on the subsequent full replicability, disclosure, and access to the original specimens for the study to maintain reliability. Peer review. None of which has been provided. And none of them ever will.

It may sound convincing to layman, but Snelling actually says nothing on how he decided it was fossil wood in the first place, nor how he arrived to such conclusions as the tree being in situ or another specimen being Dicroidium. Listen to how he identifies his specimens as fossil wood: "woody internal structure was clearly evident, thus the samples were not the remains of roots that had grown into this weathered rock from trees on the present land surface". Eh? He also conveniently fails to mention that the laboratories he sent these samples to failed to identify it as wood but iron concretions. Neither does he actually provide the detailed results of the labs, instead merely letting readers take it on good faith that this was the conclusion. His assurances of the lack of contamination is not backed up even by a description of the original deposition, how he collected the "fossils", preparation, etc. Everything is hurriedly mentioned and quickly dismissed. Pretty words, vacuous information content. Notice that the pictures provided are also mere thumbnails discouraging closer inspection.

He also uses real academic studies for his factual enough introductions. Then deceptively weaves it around creationist journals and biblical references while using big science words. Common strategy. If it was Wikipedia, it would have been known as WP:SYNTHESIS and source padding. Akin to referencing NASA in describing Mars, but then suddenly switching to UFOlogists with crystals and claiming that Mars is inhabited by three-foot green men living in invisible palaces. Hoping that the reader will see you used reliable NASA information and subsequently conclude that all your other references are similarly reliable when they are in fact, not. His conclusions are breathlessly repeated by various religious sites only, especially ones he controls which also sing praises to his glittering career. None of which justify your characterization of his studies as "scientifically supported".

Real science looks for answers, even if it means rejecting obsolete ones. Modern geology and paleontology has undergone several shifts from earlier versions as more information has been gathered. Mistakes have been made, acknowledged, and corrected.

Creationism, in contrast, has not and never will. How could they? They already have an answer decided arrogantly in a ~4000 year old book by an anonymous goatherder to be absolute truth. An inviolable answer that they are forbidden from proving wrong. It's not a search for answers. It's a search for excuses. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 15:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

To 182.239.164.103: You need to know that all creationary sources are by definition unreliable sources simply because they are creationary sources and so cannot be used on WP. HerbertHuey (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia claimed to have a No Point of View Policy and one would think that with so much debate surrounding the topic and across so many credible sources that a section titled Controversy Surrounding C14 Dating would make this page more credible than presenting a blatantly bias point of view which only promotes ignorance in the wider community. See http://creationwiki.org/Carbon_dating . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.244.129 (talk) 02:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

No, wikipedia has a neutral point of view policy. It means that we reflect the consensus of reliable secondary sources. As a result, a bunch of morons blovating and basically flat out lying about a subject they are clearly not experts on would not make the page more credible, but less credible.Farsight001 (talk) 02:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

RealTalk1000 (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Quite a high-minded academic debate going on this Talk section here.

Those who propose a dissenting argument on a subject are stupid, idiot, poo-poo heads? End of debate? Please...

I am a Political Scientist and would label such methods of shutting down communication and debate among two individuals "religious zealotry" and "dogmatic".

For the record, my point of view on this subject is as follows: I was taught throughout the years in school that carbon dating is accepted consensus scientific view, and therefore my default viewpoint has been to accept this as truth.

I cannot speak to whether or not there is an actual scientific debate on this issue or not. I have no clue. I have expertise in Project Management and in the Social Sciences, not the Physical Sciences. Yet while I can not speak for a scientific debate, I will definitely assert that there is a debate among people and in our society on this issue. The social controversy is real, the social debate is real, and denying this fact is illogical and a denial of reality.

There are social controversies on, for example, the Indian/Pakistani border. While there is no controversy on this issue in the scientific community, it is a very real social controversy. Is it Wikipedia's policy to ignore the controversy altogether and act like it does not exist? Any individual who would like to read commentary and happenings of a social controversy are denounced and insulted? I would hope not.

There is a respectable man in my city council who brought up this controversy to me at lunch the other day. I simply came to visit the wikipedia page to find out the credibility. Instead of informing me, wikipedia was silent. Rather, this Talk page the debate was full of insulting language towards a person with an opposing viewpoint. I am college educated, but like most people, I am rather unlearned and untrained in the Physical Sciences. In my ignorance on this subject, this whole ordeal has simply made me rather suspicious of wikipedia as actually being riddled with bias, censorship, and unprofessional amateurs armed with school-yard insults. As opposed to a place of high-minded, civil discourse and academics.

I think most would consider what I have just stated as sound reasoning, and therefore the social controversy on carbon dating should be addressed by wikipedia authors. My proposal to deal with it, is as follows:

The goal of the proposal is essentially twofold:

1) Allow wikipedia vistors to read an article on this carbon dating debate featuring all sides of what appears to be a social controversy, and restrain ourselves from Censorship.

2) At the same time, we want to preserve the scientific integrity and credibility of Wikipedia. We would not want to misinform people and feature quack science that does not meet or exceed a certain standard.

To accomplish this:

The social controversy should possibly have a separate article as suggested above by another contributor, so as to not upset the credibility of the scientific article. The proposed article should discuss the different viewpoints. Issues discussed would include the credibility of the science or lack thereof, and if there is indeed an actual scientific controversy that even exists.

I am unfamiliar with wikipedia's standard on publishing what is considered credible science, but if the controversy ends up meeting or exceeding the standard, than no doubt the scientific controversy should make its way into this carbon dating article.

Is this proposal out of line or is this quite reasonable?

RealTalk1000 (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

You come here and to other talk pages only to push your agendas (due to boredom I am guessing, and with the mistaken view that this is a debating society or something), and then lament the fact that no one takes your flame bait. You have absolutely no edits (as in zero), yet you go about insulting the editors. You have exactly as much credibility as anyone else with a pulse and an internet connection; you admit you come here only to shake things up, but yet moan when no one takes your flamebait. Give it a break, because as I am proud to point out, no one is biting. Marteau (talk) 07:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

An editor dismissing the creationist POV here is being extremely uncivil, but he also happens to be correct. There is no serious dispute among genuine experts, and to include the religious dissent in a page about the scientific process would be giving it undue weight, violating Wikipedia's NPOV policy. I suggest reading Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, particularly the sections on Due and Undue Weight, Making Necessary Assumptions, and Controversial Subjects. It may also help to see Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources, particularly the guidelines in the Scholarship section. If you disagree with any of those standards, feel free to argue for a change on the talk pages for those articles. Unless the standards change, however, they're set at a higher level than this article, so arguing about it here is an entire waste of time; no matter what argument you make, changes based on creationist sources will be reverted. Elmo iscariot (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

¹⁴N to ¹⁴C -> 1 Electron?

What happens to the seventh electron of N14 while it turns to C14?

What happens to the 7th electron?

Aloha2009 (talk) 03:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

It combines with the proton produced during the reaction to make a hydrogen atom [1]. Mikenorton (talk) 09:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this information.

Can I imagine it this way?

By the way, atoms appear to be marvelous toys :-)

--Aloha2009 (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

When a neutron hits a nitrogen nucleus, a proton is ejected at high speed. It doesn't grab one of the electrons from the same atom. The carbon atom that is formed remains charged and who knows what happens to it. The proton that was ejected eventually slows down sufficiently because it encounters various atoms in its path and either binds to some atom or steals an electron from some atom. Vmelkon (talk) 22:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Rewritten lede

I have attempted to simplify the lede so that people I know can understand it. This required fewer technical details (which are provided later in the article), such as references to "radiometric", "radio-isotope", years "Before Present" & 1950, etc. Ease of reading was my aim. I hope that is ok with all editors. -- spin|^control 01:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Some criticism.

There is one fact that makes it highly unreasonable to believe that the proportion of C-14 to C-12 was the same in the past as it has been in recent history: It is not in equilibrium.

The rate of C-14 production today is 18% higher than the rate of decay (Whitelaw). This means that today we are experiencing a net increase in the proportion of C-14 in the atmosphere. It is impossible to determine whether it has always been increasing (as argued by some creationists) or whether it has undergone cycles of increase and decrease (as argued by other creationists and evolutionary scientists). But one thing is certain: there is no reason to believe that the C-14:C-12 proportion has been constant throughout time, and good reason to believe it has been different, and often lower, in the past than it is today.

If the C-14 content of the atmosphere was lower in the past, that means that Carbon dating results today are inflated, because the calculations will mistake the absence of C-14 in the original sample as years which passed by causing the C-14 to decay.

Recognizing this, many uniformitarian scientists calibrate their dating efforts to the early 19th century, in the belief that today's C-14 increase is due to the industrial revolution. This assumes, however, that today's C-14 increase is only the result of the industrial revolution (which is unfalsifiable) and that the proportion was in equilibrium prior to the 19th century (which is also unfalsifiable). In other words, while acknowledging the problem posed by the increasing C-14, the uniformitarian scientists have failed to solve it, and yet continue to use the methodology. 76.120.17.197 (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

We know all this already, and those who do C14 testing compensate of these things when they do the math. So scientists have no failed to solve it. You just don't have a clue.Farsight001 (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)