desktop dating information - Which fact about carbon 14 dating is false

The field relationships are generally broad, and a wide range of ‘dates’ can be interpreted as the time when the lava solidified.

What would our geologist have thought if the date from the lab had been greater than 200 million years, say 350.5 ± 4.3 million years?

In other words, the age should lie between 197.2 million years and 203.6 million years.

which fact about carbon 14 dating is false-41

From the mapped field relationships, it is a simple matter to work out a geological cross-section and the relative timing of the geologic events.

His geological cross-section may look something like Figure 2.

It relates only to the accuracy of the measuring equipment in the laboratory.

Even different samples of rock collected from the same outcrop would give a larger scatter of results. He would again say that the calculated age did not represent the time when the rock solidified.

No matter what the radiometric date turned out to be, our geologist would always be able to ‘interpret’ it.

He would simply change his assumptions about the history of the rock to explain the result in a plausible way. Wasserburg, who received the 1986 Crafoord Prize in Geosciences, said, ‘There are no bad chronometers, only bad interpretations of them!

Clearly, Sedimentary Rocks A were deposited and deformed before the Volcanic Dyke intruded them.

These were then eroded and Sedimentary Rocks B were deposited.

’ In fact, there is a whole range of standard explanations that geologists use to ‘interpret’ radiometric dating results.

Tags: , ,