Some people use that for dating the Earth as being 4.6 billions of years old...
(media.conspiracies.win)
Comments (17)
sorted by:
C14 was never used for dating the Earth. C14 is used for dating organic remnants. Earth "creation" first was dated using uranium-lead method. "Creation" is in quotes because it is actually date of creation of minerals, not date of completing Earth as planet from them,
Half-life means that after that time half of unstable isotope atoms will decay, that also means that other half will still be here, so if there is a quarter of atoms, than two half-life periods passed and so on. Half-life is not maximum age you could detect using that isotope.
Radioisotope method does not show the age of some object, it shows the date of creation of substance this object was made from. So dating any man-made objects using this method is senseless. Dating the age of some wooden chest gives the date when trees used to make planks grew, not the date when that chest was made, f.e..
С14 method works for organic because percentage of C14 in atmosphere is constant - it decays, but at the same time continously created by space radiation in highest layers of Earth atmosphere. But when C14 is tied by some plant into some organic composition like wood, there will be no creation of new C14 and it will slowly decay, halving its content (and so number of decays per minute per gram of carbon) each 5700 years. Content of C14 in atmosphere is very small (10e-10% of all C that gives 13 decays per minute per 1 gram of athmospheric C), so the maximum age that could be confidently dated by C14 is only 50000 years. So, when you see something like "it have an age of half million years dated by C14 method111!!!!" - it is a complete bullshit.
To date older things, other, more stable isotopes used. But most minerals will obviously just show the age of Earth components creation.
Really I often wrote that things for others, who are really interested in stuff, not to argue something. It's a pity that modern people have very limited spheres of knowledge and prefer to blindly believe in things they don't know about, regardless if it official narrative or some alternative view, instead of knowing how things really works, but I apreciate those who want to really want to know how things work.
C14 does not enter atmosphere, it is created in it by ionizing radiation. Flux of radiation in the past could be estimated by other means (f.e. by other elements isotopes), and looks like it was relatively stable.
Rate of decay is very stable thing, it could not be changed by anything except exposure to ionising radiation that will make sample "younger" by creation of new C14 among captured carbon. It is concentration of C14 could be different at the time of capture in the plant.
You are partially right, you will get +- thousands of years for dates over tens thousands years ago. For thousands of years you will get +- century accuracy.
As you might know, history is not the science at all. It is an attempt of humanity to describe its deeds, not learning nature secrets. So it is not a surprise historians are not very honest in scientific sense, especially if they have specific narrative they need to follow.
Aluminium 26, for example.
What do you mean by "naturally occuring metal"? It's not about metal, it's about element. And aluminium is very common element on earth, in form of clay and many other minerals. All that minerals include aluminium that have isotope that decaying and created constantly by cosmic radiation if exposed to it. Half-life of aluminium-26 is 700 000 years.
This is a misunderstanding. Other isotopes are used in such “estimates” [guesses] as to the earth’s supposed (and dogmatically taught) age.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14 - source
What year is it in Judaism? 5783? Creationists think the Earth is ~6000 years old, right?