Radioactive dating debate
After all, this what the archeologist guessed in their published books.Some believe trees are known to be as old as 9,000 years. A lot of people doubt this claim for various good reasons I wont go into here.The other two isotopes in comparison are more common than carbon-14 in the atmosphere but increase with the burning of fossil fuels making them less reliable for study (2); carbon-14 also increases, but its relative rarity means its increase is negligible. After this point, other Absolute Dating methods may be used.Today, the radiocarbon-14 dating method is used extensively in environmental sciences and in human sciences such as archaeology and anthropology.Dates up to this point in history are well documented for C14 calibration.
In 1979, Desmond Clark said of the method “we would still be foundering in a sea of imprecisions sometime bred of inspired guesswork but more often of imaginative speculation” (3).Of most people who have heard of this incident before, that's probably about the total depth of what they've heard.And there's pretty good reason for this: Geology dating is pretty complicated, and if you look at Dr. A quick flash to a chart during the debate purportedly showing so, and far too much to read in a second, and then on to somethig else. During the recent debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye, the young earth creationist Ken Ham made the claim that some 90% of dating methods were wrong.