Answers in genesis radiocarbon dating nairobi dating sites
Other methods, such as dating of corals by growth bands, cross-checked with both 230Th/234U and C-14 dating have also provided reliable calibrations.(Scott seems oblivious to the extensive work done in calibrating C-14 dating methods.However, this is prior to adjustments made to correct any figures based on numerous factors, such as the type of sample being dated, its geographical and stratigraphic location, pre-treatment procedures, calibration adjustments, correction factors/multipliers, etc.The initial Conventional Radiocarbon Age (CRA) used wood from 1890 CE (prior to extensive fossil fuel pollution of the atmosphere) as an absolute radiocarbon standard, corrected to 1950 CE, which is considered as 0 years before present (BP), and the assumptions that the isotope decay is constant and that atmospheric C-14 levels have remained stable in the past.
He also gives the correct reason for this, being that C-14 is a radioisotope with a half-life of ~5,600 years.
Given that one of these assumptions has since been revised, Libby (the pioneer of C-14 dating) and his team presented strong evidence for C-14 dating.
Choosing samples with independently determined ages, such as acacia wood from the tomb of the Egyptian pharaoh Zoser (or Djoser), 3 Dynasty c.a.
solar/cosmic neutrons striking nitrogen in the atmosphere thus converting it to C-14), he then manages to arrive at the odd assumption that carbon dating agrees with the YEC timescale of the Earth being only some 6,000 10,000 years old.
Please note this is less than two half-lives of C-14, which will become important as we delve further into Scott's article.
Add to that the rather unscientific term "prove" and the question of the title can be seen, rightly, as something of a To give Scott some credit, though, his first task in the article is to dispel the "common myth" that carbon-14 dating has any bearing on measurements of the age of the Earth.