Radio carbon dating inaccuracies

06 Sep

The results can be as much as 150 million years different from each other! They then pick the date they like best, based upon their preconceived notion of how old their theory says the fossil should be .

So they start with the assumption that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, then manipulate the results until they agree with their conclusion. So why is it that if the date doesn't fit the theory, they change the facts?

For decades, radiocarbon dating has been a way for scientists to get a rough picture of when once-living stuff lived.

The method has been revolutionary and remains one of the most commonly used dating methods to study the past. Pearson, an assistant professor of dendrochronology at the University of Arizona, studies the past lives of trees to better understand the history of civilizations.

If a Bigtooth Maple were cut down on Mount Lemmon in 2016 and it had 400 rings, you would know the tree started growing in 1616. What if it's been used to build a home or a ship or a bonfire?

The rings could still tell how many years the tree lived, but not necessarily when. He set out on a series of expeditions across the southwest to bridge the gap between contemporary wood and wood beams from the ruins of civilizations long gone.

Archaeology has undoubtedly enriched mankind’s history like no other science.

radio carbon dating inaccuracies-37

This date did not fit the preconceived notion that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. They do this many times, using a different dating method each time.

Many people are under the false impression that carbon dating proves that dinosaurs and other extinct animals lived millions of years ago.

What many do not realize is that carbon dating is not used to date dinosaurs. Carbon dating is only accurate back a few thousand years.

"Every year the trees in our forests show the swing of Time's pendulum and put down a mark.

They are chronographs, recording clocks, by which the succeeding seasons are set down through definite imprints," he wrote in the pages of National Geographic.