5
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 134:
Line 134: + + + + + +
Poor "reference"
How do you explain the fact that carbon dating methods were verified through many other methods of dating? When Libby developed the method he checked his results using verified historical records pertaining to the life of Zoser during the thrid dynasty. Carbon dating has also been proven effective through comparing results from other unrelated aging methods such as U/T dating, Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL), Thermoluminescence, Electron Spin Resonance, Dendrochronology, and Potassium-Argon dating. I have personally tested the age of a buried hearth pit using carbon dating and OSL, and the results were he same. [[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 16:15, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
How do you explain the fact that carbon dating methods were verified through many other methods of dating? When Libby developed the method he checked his results using verified historical records pertaining to the life of Zoser during the thrid dynasty. Carbon dating has also been proven effective through comparing results from other unrelated aging methods such as U/T dating, Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL), Thermoluminescence, Electron Spin Resonance, Dendrochronology, and Potassium-Argon dating. I have personally tested the age of a buried hearth pit using carbon dating and OSL, and the results were he same. [[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 16:15, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
== Poor "reference" ==
Reference stated as support for the "older than 50,000 years, carbon-dating is bad" is <ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html]</ref>
If you review that posting, it's sourced from someone's comment - not really good science. I think someone needs to volunteer to research the original Faure text on geochemistry