Radiocarbon Dating

[nightkraawler]

sooo when can we get the over-the - counter testing kit for radiocarbon dating..2-4 years?I need an estimate.

[ChelseaBobcat]

mind=blown. i cant believe humans figured this out and created the machinery... not that im saying humans are stupid or anything but i just cant even imagine having the knowledge to create something like this.

[crnormandy]

It is good to reaffirm my assumption that there are many people who are thoroughly indoctrinated rather than educated and are incapable of actual thought. Anyone who truly seeks out evidence and is thinking freely would have lots of questions.

[crnormandy]

What about non living things such as rocks? I believe that is what my original link was representing.

[CrazyChunkles]

An archaeology student this was helpful in understanding more about dating, thanks!

[nbmnkjlrwewds]

marriage and get a trusted women Online  *lushfmlk.info*

[Zaywex]

Woah, what's with all the spam. Anyways, nice video, really informative :)

[jamespiperca]

Quite an intricate process.

[Hunterkirk]

How do you know what the Original amount of Carbon is? Has that been proven to be a constant? Are the regional and environmental conditions that would alter the base level of Carbon or make it not a consistent? How do you know if the chemical washes are not reducing the Carbon in the sample along with the "corrupting" carbon?

[BW022]

@Hunterkirk The ratio of carbon 12 to carbon 14 is a constant. Carbon 14 is produced in the upper atmosphere when nitrogren is hit by fast neutrons (produced by cosmic rays hitting other particles). It happens over the entire atmosphere before falling carbon is mixed up in the atmosphere and oceans and takes hundreds of years to absorb into plants and animals. Ocean and wind currents are global and the source is spread out over the entire surface of the planet.

[Hunterkirk]

@BW022 I disagree. Cosmic rays are not constant either. The suns energy regularly fluxes (see sun spots and such). Oh it may be fairly constant today I think there are a lot of unfounded assumption that this consistency has always been the case since creation of the planet. In addition it only works on organic material.

[BW022]

@Hunterkirk Radio carbon dating is only accurate over about 60,000 years, so we don't care of the C14 ratio was 4B years ago. Solar flares represent an extremely tiny variation in cosmic rays created by the sun -- further filtered by the Earth's magnetic field and years it takes to circulate the atmosphere and oceans. You can measure the C14 ratios in ice core samples, artifacts, tree rings, etc. of known dates and you can compare them against other dating methods.

[pyr666]

@Hunterkirk

interestingly enough, as a first order reaction (google it), you dont NEED the original amount

[utuber980]

carbon dating is ok. give or take a few million years. lol

[BW022]

@utuber980 The limit of radio carbon dating is about 60,000 years. You would need to look at radio potasium-argon or uranium dating techniques.

[oggleman]

does the end of the tube for the lighter carbon atoms have a detecting device too? i don't see how they could measure the ratio of c14 to the lighter ones if they don't

[VESANG]

@oggleman THANKS A LOT ,GOOD OBSERVATION AND GREAT QUESTION...

I HOPE SOME OF THE SMART GUYS ANSWER THAT ONE ...

[VESANG]

OK! I HAVE REAL QUESTION. DOES ANYBODY KNOW FOR SURE THAT THE DECAY OF C14 DOES NOT CHANGE ALTHOUGH OBVIOUSLY THE SAMPLE GETS SUCH A MISTREATMENT LIKE CHEMICAL WASHING ,BURNING, 50OOO VOLTS IN THE ACCELERATOR ,BUMPING WITH INCREDIBLE SPEED CLASHING INSIDE THE UNIT WITH ALL KINDS OF..AND AT THE AND IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE ONLY REGISTERED # OF CLICKS .

IT DOES NOT LOOK LIKE THEY CAN COLLECT ,VERIFY AND REALLY COUNT THE ATOMS . I AM JUST LOOKING FOR MORE REAL INFO

THANKS A LOT IN ADVANCE

[D4v1id]

In the accelerator, what happens to the Carbon-13 atoms? I know the C-12 go to the inside and C-14 outside.. What about the C-14?

[VESANG]

NOW I KNOW THAT THERE SO MUCH MANIPULATION GOING ON...

NOBODY CAN PROVE OR REALLY KNOW WHAT KIND OF ATOMS HIT THOSE TWO DETECTING DEVICES AT THE END OF THE UNIT... THIS IS WHAT THEY THINK HAPPENS ...JUST THE WAY THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS PRESENTED AS FACT ALTHOUGH IT CONTRADICTS THE VERY FOUNDATION OF SCIENCE THAT IN ORDER TO BE SCIENCE WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO OBSERVE ,REGISTER AND DEMONSTRATE

I CAN'T BELIEVE HOW EASE IS TO BRAIN WASH HUMAN BEINGS . THEY ARE PLAYING WIT US LIKE THEY RATS

[nerudw]

@VESANG U r a complete dumbass and know nothing of science. I'm sorry, but u r just plain wrong. The theory of evolution has been proven; carbon dating is accurate and they do know wat atoms there are in the sample. I dont believe its right to persecute other people beliefs, but the moment u deny something that is objectively true, then i say fuck off, fuck you and fuck anyone who supports creationism.

[VESANG]

THANK YOU FOR THE REPLY ! I AM JUST PASSING ACROSS VERY FOUNDATIONAL IDEA THAT I DON'T THINK YOU PICKED UP FROM MY COMMENT...HOW DO YOU PROVE THAT SOMETHING IS TRUE OR NOT ?

IT DOES NOT MATTER IF I AM CREATIONIST OR ATHEIST OR HINDU OR WHATEVER. MANY OF US HAVE THAT TENDENCY TO BELIEVE SOMETHING T JUST BECAUSE WE WANT TO BELIEVE IT AND BECAUSE SOMEBODY ELSE SOLD IT TO US . AND I AM NOT EXCLUDING CHURCHES OR ANY RELIGIOUS,GOVERNMENT OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF ORG-N.

EVOLUTION IS INDOCTRINATION !

[VESANG]

HI NERUDW! HAVE TO FINISH MY THOUGHT !

I APPRECIATE YOUR POINT BUT AS YOU SAY I WILL TRY TO BE OBJECTIVE!

SEE HOW EASE TO PROVE THAT YOU ARE WRONG !

YOU SAID THAT I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT SCIENCE .WELL I KNOW WATER IS H2O AND THAT THE EARTH IS A SPHERE. THAT PROVES YOU WRONG RIGHT ON THE SPOT... AND I AM NOT SAYING THAT BECAUSE I GOT SO OFFENDED BY YOU OR BECAUSE I WANT TO BE MEAN TO YOU BUT JUST TO SHOW HOW INACCURATE AND INCONSISTENT WE ARE ON A DAILY BASES AND SCIENCE IS NOT AN EXCEPTION

[1RadicalOne]

All you people using crap from Kent Hovind are really quite sad.

[SovereignSarcasm]

*brain explodes*

...well, this sort of helped me with my essay. But my brain still hurts. That looks painfully complex.

[Eye2EyeIIIV]

Things to consider about Carbon Dating:

Samples of Known Ages are tested → It Doesn't Work

Unknown Ages are tested → It's Assumed to Work

...That's...not...Science.

[ivanlagrossemoule]

@Eye2EyeIIIV Ever heard about tree rings giving their age. Well, they also depend on the environement. So if there was a particularly dry year, the ring will be thinner and so on. If you take dead trees you can compared them to live trees and compare the rings, knowing when that tree died. With that method you can go up to like 10'000 years ago. They tested carbon dating on those trees and find out that they had to correct it a bit. That is science.

[Lallapalalable]

@Eye2EyeIIIV

Samples of Known Ages are tested-It works when you callibrate it to the known conditions outside of how old it is, such as geological factors and diet (if it is biological)

Sample of Unknown age-ACCEPTED to work because all of the required factors used to calibrate in test samples are applied to the unknown sample based on observations and reasoning behind all deductions.

That...is...Science!

[VESANG]

VERY ACCURATE STATEMENT ! THANKS A LOT !

FOR SOME REASON PEOPLE CAN'T MAKE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THEORY AND FACTS , ASSUMPTION AND REALITY ... AND HOW MANY TIMES WE JUST DON'T WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE SIMPLY DON'T KNOW...

[neoverse]

Who measured the levels of nitrogen. carbon, etc in the atmosphere back then? if no one was there to measure it then anything about it is speculation. Speculation with fancy terms and equations in front of them do not make them facts, all you have is a fancy guess.

[neoverse]

0:39 - All (living) things contain carbon

046 - As long as an organism is alive it maintains...

1:02 - they measure and see how much less carbon 14 there is compared to a living organism.

Whooooooaaaaaaa wait a min!

This means you would have to know the amount of carbon 14 that was in the living counterpart of what is being measured.

Last time I checked bones don't have living tissue.

[Kingtunice]

i dont think carbon dating is the only form of radiometric dating

[neoverse]

@Kingtunice and it never will be, every time one method is proven faulty another will take it's place. It's a never ending cycle of deceit.

[BabyMissa]

@neoverse In other words, it's not the AMOUNT of Carbon 14, but the natural ratio of Carbon 12 and Carbon 14 that they can measure against.

[neoverse]

What natural ratio?

[BabyMissa]

In chemistry, all isotopes of an element have a level of natural abundance that stays in a very explicit ratio to each other. Wherever the regular carbon-12 occurs, a much smaller amount of carbon-14 occurs. So they don't measure the amount of carbon-14, but rather measure the ratio amount of carbon-12 atoms to carbon-14 atoms and compare it to the ratio it's supposed to be when the organism is alive. Because they know the half-life of carbon-14, they can figure out when the organism died.

[neoverse]

There is no way to know what the amounts were so called millions of years ago. All you can do is take what you have today and guess what it was in what ever time frame you are predicting. it's still a guess no matter how much scientific jargon you put in front of it.

[BabyMissa]

You don't seem to understand. The RATIO never changes--it's a natural fact that doesn't change. The ratio in an organic organism living TODAY would be the same as it would be in an organism living millions of years ago. The point is, after the organism dies, the carbon-14 degenerates back into nitrogen at a constant rate. We can do MATH using the half-life formula to find out how long ago the thing died.

What I'm talking about isn't about jargon. It's about raw natural science.

[BabyMissa]

/watch?v=udkQwW6aLik

Maybe this will help those who need a little more explanation on the basic science behind radiocarbon dating.

[neoverse]

@BabyMissa this video has the same basic material as this one and it makes the same assumptions about the levels of C14. Nothing you can say will prove any of it a fact. You know as well as anyone else who has actually put 2 brain cells together and formed their own opinion that it's only a guess and that's all it will ever be.

[BabyMissa]

@neoverse Please take a science class. Preferably one that includes science.

[neoverse]

@BabyMissa Take a class? All a class will do is attempt to brainwash me into thinking guesswork is fact.

[BabyMissa]

@neoverse Better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. You really suggest the point of any educational coursework is moot because it doesn't corroborate your beliefs? It would be a wonder if you trusted anyone who spent years studying science in school, like your doctor, or the people who create the medicines you take. They must have been brainwashed into putting guesswork into practice, because lord knows nothing they do works.

[neoverse]

@BabyMissa First of all, Doctors don't save lives, they only help to extend life. Only one man can save lives, Jesus Christ. Do you really think knowledge can only be obtained via school? And anyone who didn't go to a college or like place is uneducated? This is the arrogance of evolution and the scientific community.

I wonder what Bill Gates, Henry Ford or Einstein would have to say about that. For you too assume ignorance without college is arrogance and ignorance on your part.

[BabyMissa]

People who are not educated in science should not sit here and attempt to debunk it. If you don't understand the basic principles, and don't want to, then just ignore it and continue living your happy life. You don't have to believe in math and science, just stop insulting our intelligence in the process. Believe me we're just as happy not hearing from you as you don't want to hear from us.

[rkyeun]

@neoverse

If they heard you, they'd call you ignorant too.

[heyawhaw]

@neoverse

Well, it's strange isn't it. All scientists use the same basic scientific method and it has given us medicine, building material, air planes, computers to communicate on the internet with, all which you obviously happily make use of, but as soon as you bronze age mytholgical world view is under attack then the scientific method is useless guesswork? I hate to break it to you, but you have already been brain washed. You don't think your cluelessness is shining through?

[rkyeun]

@neoverse

Land-dwelling animals and plants get their C14 from the atmosphere, where it naturally occurs and replenishes to a constant amount as a result of cosmic rays generating it. So to know how much C14 they had then, we only need to know how much C14 there was at the time. There is a slight amount of variation in this, but nothing terribly huge. But just to be more accurate, we calibrate it with samples of prehistoric air recovered from ice cores.

[gregrutz]

Cool video !

[onthecuttingedge2005]

do you feel C14 is killing you?! radio poison.

[creationliberty]

Very interesting. An awful lot of work though for something unproven to work at all and based off many assumptions... but very interesting nonetheless.

[glassbrain]

Yes ok, dating methods disagree with your ancient book of fables, go away and let other people get on with real science and you can brood about irreducibly complex colons.

[scoobysmacks]

how are the positive every living thing has the same c14toc12 ratio

[BusterXXXL]

Stop dating samples! Dating with samples is just not natural!

[alexkidd3d]

oh wow, this was really interesting. Awesome to see the actual processes behind dating.

[kleenex3000]

Tree rings are not the calibration basis for Radiocarbon dating - the dendrochronological calibration curves allow a fine adjustment of the data in regard to... see above

Always problems with a "bigger" comment... HELP *LOL*

[kleenex3000]

C14 dating is an absolute method. The raw data out of the sample is the relation C14 / C12, and the C14 / C12 of air and the half life time of C14 are used to calculate the age.

[kleenex3000]

The dendrochronological calibration curve then allows for a correction of the result in regard to the fact that the 14C/12C of air was not exactly constant over time

[lucasregan1986]

SO-mummy wrap and coffin case are living organism'S

DOES ANYONE PAy ATTENTION????

[D1ZaST4R]

the carbon molecules leave the body and hit the mummy wrap. Like stink on a blanket

[r0o0b0i0n]

Mummy wrap = cotton = living organism

Coffin = wood = living organism

Are you home schooled?

[UrbanDecae81]

He can't be home schooled, those kids know how to spell.

[jonesy77777]

educational tax dollars being put to good use

[alexkidd3d]

Not living, but yes they come from living things, cotton and wood for example.

[DickGhostmoon]

At the end of this video, you date the sample by the pulses that come in. So you make the assumption that carbon pulses equate with age? So if the climate was different say 5000 years ago to what you assume it was then carbon dating is completely useless?

[BabyMissa]

Climate doesn't change the degeneration rate of carbon 14.

Carbon 14 is radioactive nitrogen (which acts like carbon), and once an organic organism dies, the carbon 14 loses its radioactivity at a steady constant rate, turning slowly back into nitrogen. The pulses measure the ratio of carbon 12 and carbon 14 of the sample as compared to what it is in a living organism. They can figure out how old the sample is from the ratio and the known degeneration rate of carbon 14.

[DickGhostmoon]

Climate most certainly frogging well does change the degeneration rate of C14! Are you saying the decay rate is the same all across the solar system?

Or did one of the "climategate" professors from East Anglia University teach you?

[neoverse]

You don't even know what the decay rate of anything was in the past without guessing, now your saying you know that it changes? Gimme a break.

Across the solar system? Let me know when you get back from your round trip to all the other planet from collecting C14 samples, then we can discuss that part of your statement.

I've never heard of that university but I'll look it up. Are you suggesting if I believe that global warming is a hoax it affects my ability to think on this subject?

[DickGhostmoon]

neoverse - spot on. I don't disagree.

But if you believe C02 from humans causes climate change then I'd have to question your ability to assimilate information.

[BabyMissa]

Hellish changes in temperature, as in temperatures across the solar system will change the decay rate, but for the practical purposes of radiocarbon dating objects on earth, there is little consequence because our changes in temperature are really minute comparitively. Either way, we have already accounted for Earthly climate change that we know has taken place--scientists made a painstakingly-difficult-to-cre­ate curve that they measure against depending on the time frame the sample gives.

[DickGhostmoon]

I'm not saying it isnn't true, but one thing that can be proved to be true is Dan 9:25 and that authenticates the Bible so why do scientists deny the flood theory?

Why did the NIST scientists reinvent physics to explain building 7? Science is about politics and not about truth.

[Jan73463]

perfect!

[korgho5757]

It would be better if they explained how they cross reference their data linking them to the past, how they bulletproof the samples against contamination, how they are sure that the carbon cycle is precisely this and that long. They are working with big numbers and claim to pinpoint events down to a few years etc

[australpride]

basically, if you're not a geologist, paleontologist or other professional concerned with dating then your opinions are invalid

[lailum]

i checked wiki on this subject, it saids that carbon dating can only test an object up to no more than 60,000 years old, so how do we know the earth is 6 billion years old? and NO i am not a creationist, plz, its insulting, im just a student looking for answers.

[stevebd1]

Uranium has a half-life of 4.5e+9 years. As uranium decays, it produces helium and it's final stable state is lead. We can get some idea of the age of the Earth from the pockest of uranium, lead and helium found underground.

[australpride]

well, you imbecile, carbon isn't used to date the age of the earth..

[prowled]

yes that would be the correct answer.

[r0o0b0i0n]

There are dozens of ways of dating rocks, and dozens of ways to date organic material. By dating a sample using several of these methods you know that the result is in the range of accuracy. Scientists also make predictions based on surrounding rocks/material and when several test results support their prediction you can be pretty certain the age is accurate. To be even more certain you take several samples.

[oldblubblub]

@lailum Carbon Dating is generally used on plants-I think. There are A MILLION different dating methods such as radiometric dating, DNA, thermolumenesence, and so on. To be perciese, the Earth isn't 6 billion years old. It's about 4.7 billion years old.

[stevjen1]

@lailum They use radiometric dating. As radioactive elements decay the rate is measured. It is constant. See U-235 decay, U-238, pb-207, pb-206, Curium 247. Ratios. There are over a dozen measuring techniques. The earth is 4.545 million years old. +- 1/10 of one percent inaccurate. That is, it is 99.09 percent accurate. How cool is that.

[stevjen1]

@lailum They use radiometric dating. As radioactive elements decay the rate is measured. It is constant. See U-235 decay, U-238, pb-207, pb-206, Curium 247. Ratios. There are over a dozen measuring techniques. The earth is 4.545 billion years old. +- 1/10 of one percent inaccurate. That is, it is 99.09 percent accurate. How cool is that. 4.545 billion years old give or take a million years.

[audveltadmuna]

@stevjen1 and people still believe that the world is 13023 years old

[LifetotheSwiss]

They calibrate this against tree ring data. Pretty precise science.

[DansinStud]

Thank you so much for this video! FINALLY I can explain Radio Carbon Dating to someone who asks.

[jay2tails]

How old was it!?!? I've been gipt!!

[crnormandy]

Watch this video, "Why radiometric dating doesn't work" It shows why this technique is unreliable to say the least. Scientists have dated volcanic rock known to be only 200 years old using this method and it says it is millions of years old.

[pilgrimpater]

crnormany. You need to check the facts. Radio carbon datiing is NOT & CANNOT be used to date rocks nor can it be used to date organisms that don't accumulate carbon from the atmosphere (e.g. molluscs). These limitations are well known and publicised by the scientific community. Also,. I wouldn't bring up that old chestnut of 200 year rock being dated as millions of years. Check out the facts and then realise the dishonesty that the Creation Movement resorts to. You will be duly embarrassed.

[EikC]

You will hear many variants of this claim: Radio carbon dated a seal wrong! Radio carbon dated this living animal wrong! And now a volcano. This claim and its variants originated at the Answers in Genesis website.

[MrFacet]

crnormandy, the problem that has been reported to you is covered in this video by potholer54:

/watch?v=QbvMB57e - please watch it and let us know what you think of it.

[lokuh90210]

all right for those of you who dont know, by scientificle standards you cant prove how old the earth is by carbon dating, for carbon dating to work the earth whoud have to be over 30,000 years old whitch is the base argument.

[easymak1234]

This still doesn prove its accuracy. They would have to know who the mummy was, when he died and have that proof to back it up.

[sweatytoothmadman]

They have already done blind testing like that and it has demonstrated carbon 14 dating is accurate.

[FilmPA]

Man thats a lot of stuff to determine the age of something. I thought all this time there was a little less.

[Raycheetah]

Just goes to show you that radiocarbon dating, as a process, isn't exactly trivial. That's a lot of lab prep, not to mention the use and maintenance of a very expensive, very complex, very sensitive piece of scientific apparatus. I'd be interested to know how much the process costs, per sample. =^[.]^=

[RMEO1]

this is pretty impressive!!!

I have a presentation on Radiactivity and its uses (inluding C and Pb dating techinques) lol this will help me strve for an A.........

Thxxx

[Cexxloc]

its so complicated to me i think it might be crazy talk .lol

[djtleek]

That is un-freaking believable. Who the heck came up with such a procedure? Brilliant.

[lookn4thepowpow]

how old was the mummy?? now I won't be able to sleep tonight

[frosts0]

Does everyone do carbon dating this way? Is it just me, or do other people get from this video a sense that carbon dating may actually be a very shaky and  precarious endeavor? There seem to be so many opportunities for contamination (i.e., atom bungling). Is it the heaviness of the atoms of interest that mitigates against that?

[RUhypocrite2]

I'm new to learning about this but I would imagine that they would use several samples from the item they are trying to date. If they used different samples from different points on the object they could reduce the possibility of error.

If what your saying was correct, they would get all kinds of random results which a scientist would throw out.

But if they get 10,000 samples all agreeing that a dinosaur bone is 230 million years old then the evidence would be overwhelming.

[RUhypocrite2]

Hmmm, I just read that the half life of C-14 isn't long enough to date dinosaur bones.

I guess it can only date objects back to 75,000 years or so.

I would imagine they use the same protocol I was suggesting but not on dinosaur bones.

[garith21]

well between the problem that the half life of c-14 dating limits it to 50-60k years, I forget at the moment, but fossilized bones have all of the organic material replaced. Because the bone is replaced with minerals it means there's no carbon in it to date in the first place.

[nilsandrae]

"Hey Hovind! We can't carbon date this! There's NO F(BLEEP)ING carbon in it!"

-From: "Carbon dating doesn't work -- debunked" by Potholer54debunks :-D

[FrodenOrange]

LOL

[garith21]

precisely.

[jnoort]

Great video!! Love to see how it's actually done!

[jpenns]

what was this mummy wrapping made of?

[michelleadel]

fantastic explanation, brilliant resource for my students

[Cyberphysics]

Thank you for posting this - very useful to my students!

[dchreading]

I never thought that it is so complicated. Great explanation. many thanks

[Intervene]

wow. top stuff. thanks alot for this video.

[devadip1]

Well....that was simple....ehm

[scobum]

awesome. never heard it explained so well.

[superfisto]

Awesome!

[TECHKLEC]

Excellent explanation/presentation.