Which fact about carbon 14 dating is false
He would say that the date represents the time when the volcanic lava solidified.Such an interpretation fits nicely into the range of what he already believes the age to be.For example, a geologist may examine a cutting where the rocks appear as shown in Figure 1.Here he can see that some curved sedimentary rocks have been cut vertically by a sheet of volcanic rock called a dyke.It is clear that the sedimentary rock was deposited and folded before the dyke was squeezed into place.By looking at other outcrops in the area, our geologist is able to draw a geological map which records how the rocks are related to each other in the field.
What would our geologist think if the date from the lab were less than 30 million years, say 10.1 ± 1.8 million years? Or he may decide that the rock had been affected by a localized heating event—one strong enough to disturb the chemicals, but not strong enough to be visible in the field.
From his research, our evolutionary geologist may have discovered that other geologists believe that Sedimentary Rocks A are 200 million years old and Sedimentary Rocks B are 30 million years old.
Thus, he already ‘knows’ that the igneous dyke must be younger than 200 million years and older than 30 million years.
He may suggest that some other very old material had contaminated the lava as it passed through the earth.
Or he may suggest that the result was due to a characteristic of the lava—that the dyke had inherited an old ‘age’. 200.4 ± 3.2 million years) implies that the calculated date of 200.4 million years is accurate to plus or minus 3.2 million years.
Search for which fact about carbon 14 dating is false:
Would he have concluded that the fossil date for the sediments was wrong? Would he have thought that the radiometric dating method was flawed? Instead of questioning the method, he would say that the radiometric date was not recording the time that the rock solidified.