But WTF! The scientists that need methods to work obviously test the methods and are well aware of how they behave, wheyn they are usable and when they are to be avoided or at least used with caution. They were the ones that discovered that carbon dating isn't always useful. It wasn't revealed to Kent Hovind through prayer. Scientists crosscheck everything they do until they are sure that the results reflect what they are actually measuring, since it could ruing their carrers.
Carbon dating doesn't work for fossils, because they don't contain carbon.
It also doesn't work for molluscs (like the snail you pictured) because the c-14 they receive is diluted by water. It works best on plants, because they get their carbon directly from the atmosphere :)
A fossil by definition is bone that has been replaced by minerals and has no more carbon left. This happens after about 50,000 years give or take. Carbon dating doesn't work at all for measuring things older than that.
The example of dinosaur fossils is a bad one. Carbon dating doesn't work if there's no carbon left to measure. Dino bones have no more carbon in them.
Also, I'm surprised they used a snail as an example. Carbon dating isn't accurate with marine life or animals that depend on marine life as their rate of carbon and source of carbon for absorption is different from land organisms. The snail might be land based, but I still think they could have picked a better example.
no it is not, carbon dating is highly accurate, but you have to be aware of factors that can offthrow the dates you get i.e. contamination of the sample. Two great examples are the 'reservoir effect'in marine animals because they absorb old carbon, and dating things that are covered in for example preserving fluids, that have a different dat than the actual fossil. When you take into account these factors, IT IS higly accurate.
They do not tell you that atmospheric conditions will have an effect on the test subject. It is called leaching. So all dating is spectulative in nature as it assumes that leaching never took place.
Well... the biggest problem is how much nitrogen there was globally at the time, but we can find that out through ice samples, and another problem is area spacific, but through soil samples we can add that to the equasion too, making it so the atmospheric conditions are added in the equasion. There are 8 other major dating methods though that all back eachother up. You creationists always get stuck on C14 though... we can get dendrochronologyy down to an exact year up till 8 k years in the US.
In fact, Dendrochronology can be (and is) used to adjust for these problems with carbon dating.
You take several pieces of a type of wood that only grows 1 ring each year that come from the same area. You match up marker years (those years that stand out because they caused bigger or smaller rings) and carbon date each piece. Do this for a lot of pieces and you get a graph that will let you adjust for the (rather minor) error of variable C14 concentrations (which is not leeching btw).
I am acually taking a class in archaeology right now. We just went over all the dating methods. Dendrochronology is my favorite. I find it amazing we can find the exact year a tree was cut down. It's too bad that one only works in dry areas...
According to Carbon Dating, a mammoth's skin is thousands of years older than its bones. According to Carbon Dating, a living snail died thousands of years ago. And according to Carbon Dating, Two mammoths side by side lived thousands of years apart.
dude, there are eight other dating methods, yet all you guys do is pick on carbon dating because thirty years ago it wasn't very reliable, at least it's better than following a book written between four and one and a half thousand years ago by people who thought the world was flat and earthquakes and floods were because god was angry.
Carbon dating has been fixed, and dendrochronology has backed it up to the very year it was trying to date. Get over it, science ALWAYS wins.
@kryptemonic Just because you try and argue God away doesn’t mean He will go away. One day you will have to front up to that fact and face Him! Remember that you’ve been forewarned...
it is a fetish of mine to date fossils, im just a freak like that
mboundtogether 1 year ago
But WTF! The scientists that need methods to work obviously test the methods and are well aware of how they behave, wheyn they are usable and when they are to be avoided or at least used with caution. They were the ones that discovered that carbon dating isn't always useful. It wasn't revealed to Kent Hovind through prayer. Scientists crosscheck everything they do until they are sure that the results reflect what they are actually measuring, since it could ruing their carrers.
heyawhaw 1 year ago
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.
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
@Eye2EyeIIIV ''Samples of Known Ages are tested → It Doesn't Work''
Yes, it works fine.
That is how they know it does not work of snails, so they don't use it on snails.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Carbon dating doesn't work for fossils, because they don't contain carbon.
It also doesn't work for molluscs (like the snail you pictured) because the c-14 they receive is diluted by water. It works best on plants, because they get their carbon directly from the atmosphere :)
Apart from that, good video :D
theneonfire 2 years ago
3:15
A fossil by definition is bone that has been replaced by minerals and has no more carbon left. This happens after about 50,000 years give or take. Carbon dating doesn't work at all for measuring things older than that.
CarpeOmne 2 years ago
The example of dinosaur fossils is a bad one. Carbon dating doesn't work if there's no carbon left to measure. Dino bones have no more carbon in them.
Also, I'm surprised they used a snail as an example. Carbon dating isn't accurate with marine life or animals that depend on marine life as their rate of carbon and source of carbon for absorption is different from land organisms. The snail might be land based, but I still think they could have picked a better example.
ceanderson79 2 years ago
I heard it is not accurate. is that true
smartestmanalive101 3 years ago
"I heard it is not accurate. is that true?"
no it is not, carbon dating is highly accurate, but you have to be aware of factors that can offthrow the dates you get i.e. contamination of the sample. Two great examples are the 'reservoir effect'in marine animals because they absorb old carbon, and dating things that are covered in for example preserving fluids, that have a different dat than the actual fossil. When you take into account these factors, IT IS higly accurate.
jzuidema 3 years ago
carbon dating doesn't work on fossils. It only works on bones that still contain organic material.
Xtremephoenix 3 years ago
OMG U GUISE DIS VIDEO ROX!
Seriously. It rocks. Get it? Rocks? HAHAHA.
vintagecynic 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Another biased "science" show
datuna 3 years ago
They do not tell you that atmospheric conditions will have an effect on the test subject. It is called leaching. So all dating is spectulative in nature as it assumes that leaching never took place.
1Creationist 4 years ago
Well... the biggest problem is how much nitrogen there was globally at the time, but we can find that out through ice samples, and another problem is area spacific, but through soil samples we can add that to the equasion too, making it so the atmospheric conditions are added in the equasion. There are 8 other major dating methods though that all back eachother up. You creationists always get stuck on C14 though... we can get dendrochronologyy down to an exact year up till 8 k years in the US.
kryptemonic 3 years ago
In fact, Dendrochronology can be (and is) used to adjust for these problems with carbon dating.
You take several pieces of a type of wood that only grows 1 ring each year that come from the same area. You match up marker years (those years that stand out because they caused bigger or smaller rings) and carbon date each piece. Do this for a lot of pieces and you get a graph that will let you adjust for the (rather minor) error of variable C14 concentrations (which is not leeching btw).
AdenineMonkey 3 years ago
I am acually taking a class in archaeology right now. We just went over all the dating methods. Dendrochronology is my favorite. I find it amazing we can find the exact year a tree was cut down. It's too bad that one only works in dry areas...
kryptemonic 3 years ago
Cool vid!
what song is used in this?
ieatlilbratz 4 years ago
According to Carbon Dating, a mammoth's skin is thousands of years older than its bones. According to Carbon Dating, a living snail died thousands of years ago. And according to Carbon Dating, Two mammoths side by side lived thousands of years apart.
Okay, we can all trust Carbon Dating =D!! -_-
kornissues9 4 years ago
This is true. I have read about many discrepancies with carbon dating.
pottershand 4 years ago
dude, there are eight other dating methods, yet all you guys do is pick on carbon dating because thirty years ago it wasn't very reliable, at least it's better than following a book written between four and one and a half thousand years ago by people who thought the world was flat and earthquakes and floods were because god was angry.
Carbon dating has been fixed, and dendrochronology has backed it up to the very year it was trying to date. Get over it, science ALWAYS wins.
kryptemonic 3 years ago 11
@kryptemonic Just because you try and argue God away doesn’t mean He will go away. One day you will have to front up to that fact and face Him! Remember that you’ve been forewarned...
XVIagent 1 year ago