Soleron on 19 December 2013
pauluzzz1981 said:
... What is your theory about this? And does the carbondating needs the assumption that the universe is billions of years old to be accurate? |
Well, I think it mischaracterises his work. He never assumed the environmental ratio was constant. Only that the decay rate is. Volcanoes, solar wind, and more recently nuclear testing all change it. The method therefore needs calibration from lots of samples and cross-checking with other methods, and as I said no contradictions have been found that invalidate the method.
No, carbon dating doesn't rely on the universe being billions of years old. And it doesn't prove that alone either. We have plenty of other evidence for it that's more reliable than carbon. Such as uranium/lead dating, that isn't affected by volcanoes etc.
