The method involves dividing both the parent and daughter concentrations by the concentration of a similar stable isotopein this case, strontium-86.
 most samples of basalt closest to the fossil-bearing strata give dates of about 23 ma (mega annum, million years) by the argon-argon method.
Who ask about carbon-14 (14c) dating usually want to know about the radiometric dating methods that are claimed to give millions and billions of yearscarbon dating can only give thousands of years.
 there have been many attempts, because the orphan halos speak of conditions in the past, either at creation or after, perhaps even during the flood, which do not fit with the uniformitarian view of the past, which is the basis of the radiometric dating systems.
Accuracy of radiocarbon dating method
Isochron dating technique was thought to be infallible because it supposedly covered the assumptions about starting conditions and closed systems.
Even if the method is limited to marine organisms, it will be extremely useful for deciphering the history of earth's climate, ice, oceans and rocks, dr.
. alan zindler, a professor of geology at columbia university who is a member of the lamont-doherty research group, said age estimates using the carbon dating and uranium-thorium dating differed only slightly for the period from 9,000 years ago to the present.
Southon, use of natural diamonds to monitor 14c ams instrument backgrounds, nuclear instruments and methods in physics research b 259:282287, 2007.
Radiocarbon dating is not accurate
Similarly, a survey of the conventional radiocarbon journals resulted in more than forty examples of supposedly ancient organic materials, including limestones, that contained carbon-14, as reported by leading laboratories.
Are many examples where the dating methods give dates that are wrong for rocks of known age.
 the accompanying checks showed that the 14c date was not due to contamination and that the date was valid, within the standard (long ages) understanding of this dating system.
Ring dating (dendrochronology) has been used in an attempt to extend the calibration of the calibration of carbon-14 dating earlier than historical records allow, but this depends on temporal placement of fragments of wood (from long dead trees) using carbon-14 dating, assuming straight-line extrapolation backwards.
Is radiocarbon dating accuracy
On the inaccuracies found using the Carbon-14 dating method, and the various other radioactive dating methods.
Understand the limitations of dating methods better than evolutionists who claim that they can use processes observed in the present to prove that the earth is billions of years old.
These techniques, unlike carbon dating, mostly use the relative concentrations of parent and daughter products in radioactive decay chains.
The methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth, 90 percent point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists.
Scientists have long recognized that carbon dating is subject to error because of a variety of factors, including contamination by outside sources of carbon.
Note that, contrary to a popular misconception, carbon dating is not used to date rocks at millions of years old.
Is plenty of evidence that the radioisotope dating systems are not the infallible techniques many think, and that they are not measuring millions of years.
To carbon dating of fossil animals and plants, the spreading and receding of great ice sheets lagged behind orbital changes by several thousand years, a delay that scientists found hard to explain.
One rare form has atoms that are 14 times as heavy as hydrogen atoms: carbon-14, or 14c, or radiocarbon.
Amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth's atmosphere affects the amount of 14c produced and therefore dating the system.
The long-age dating techniques were really objective means of finding the ages of rocks, they should work in situations where we know the age.
Reason the group believes the uranium-thorium estimates to be more accurate than carbon dating is that they produce better matches between known changes in the earth's orbit and changes in global glaciation.
This effect (which is additional to the magnetic field issue just discussed) were corrected for, carbon dating of fossils formed in the flood would give ages much older than the true ages.
Of the many fallacious assumptions used in the dating process, many people believe Carbon-14 dating disproves the biblical timeline.
They arrived at this conclusion by comparing age estimates obtained using two different methods - analysis of radioactive carbon in a sample and determination of the ratio of uranium to thorium in the sample.
Zheng wrote:Some of the basic assumptions of the conventional rb-sr [rubidium-strontium] isochron method have to be modified and an observed isochron does not certainly define valid age information for a geological system, even if a goodness of fit of the experimental results is obtained in plotting 87sr/86sr.