If Carbon Dating is wrong... then what to replace it with?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This is a pretty weak argument. In fact, I'll change that. It's an argument that has no relevance. The question is not 'does something exist'. The question is 'Something exists - how do we tell how old it is'.

Actually, the question is: "Something exists, but the method of how we find out how old it is is claimed to be wrong - what, if anything, do we replace it with?"

It's simple English and I have no idea how it's tripping people up.

 

[Bradskii]

I didnt say carbon atoms, I said matter. Theres a difference. I had the converation years ago with someone who did a science degree, cant remember which exact subject now but it covered elements of chemistry and physics, and when going through in detail he agreed that I had a valid point and he was not aware of research in the area. Trying to recall it and explain it in briefly on an internet forum is never going to give the same degree of explanation and interaction.

But you've been told - in at least a couple of posts, how we can confirm the accuracy of dating using radioactivity. If you disagree with the explanation then feel free to explain why.

 

[Bradskii]

Actually, the question is: "Something exists, but the method of how we find out how old it is is claimed to be wrong - what, if anything, do we replace it with?"

It's simple English and I have no idea how it's tripping people up.

Something exists - how do we tell how old it is (assuming that the person replying does not hold with existing methods).

 

[HARK!]

Let's follow the conversation; shall we?

We could apply this same line of thinking to time machines, and perpetual motion machines; but then why replace faulty inventions with anything? Why not simply dismiss them?

That is a fact of science; if something is shown to be wrong, it is replaced with something that is shown to be right.

Wrong.

Not at all.

Proof? You do believe in proof, no?

Proof is for alcohol and I do not believe in proof. I accept evidence.

I accept evidence too. Do you have any?

Geocentrism was replaced with heliocentrism.

Demonstration that one faulty notion, was replaced with another notion, does not demonstrate that it's a tenet of the scientific method, that every goofy hypothesis that is presented within science, is replaced with another idea.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Demonstration that one faulty notion, was replaced with another notion, does not demonstrate that it's a tenet of the scientific method, that every goofy hypothesis that is presented within science, is replaced with another idea.

Unless you can show that I am wrong, then your comment is baseless.

 

[HARK!]

This is a pretty weak argument. In fact, I'll change that. It's an argument that has no relevance. The question is not 'does something exist'. The question is 'Something exists - how do we tell how old it is'.

Wrong.

Let's take it from the top.

"If Carbon Dating is wrong... then what to replace it with"

 

[HARK!]

Unless you can show that I am wrong, then your comment is baseless.

See: Shifting the Burden of Proof

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

See: Shifting the Burden of Proof

No, I gave my evidence. Geocentrism was scientific idea that was shown to be false and was replaced with heliocentrism.

You have given nothing to show that I am wrong.

 

[Occams Barber]

I didnt say carbon atoms, I said matter. Theres a difference.

Carbon atoms are matter along with all other types of atoms, molecules (which are combinations of atoms) and elementary atomic particles.

matter | Definition, Characteristics, States, Examples, & Facts | Britannica

OB

 

[Hans Blaster]

OK, so through radio spectroscopy and fur samples picked up at the site where sasquatch was sited, we scientifically determine that the fur was made of nylon (Personally I would have gone with rayon, if I was going to wear a hairy suit.)

How are we going to use radio spectroscopy to detect (not detect) sasquatch? Rydberg lines? Hyperfine structure lines?

 

[Bradskii]

Wrong.

Let's take it from the top.

"If Carbon Dating is wrong... then what to replace it with"

We have a method of dating organic material. If you disagree that it's a valid method - i.e. 'if carbon dating is wrong', then what method would you use? - i.e. 'then what to replace it with' (excusing the grammar).

If you disagree that it's a valid method then (bearing in mind the posts explaining why it is valid), please explain why. And then tell us which one you'd recommend so we can compare them.

 

[essentialsaltes]

How are we going to use radio spectroscopy to detect (not detect) sasquatch? Rydberg lines? Hyperfine structure lines?

 

[HARK!]

No, I gave my evidence. Geocentrism was scientific idea that was shown to be false and was replaced with heliocentrism.

You have given nothing to show that I am wrong.

See: Hasty Generalization Fallacy

 

[HARK!]

- i.e. 'if carbon dating is wrong', then what method would you use? - i.e. 'then what to replace it with' (excusing the grammar).

Remember when Obama wanted to replace energy sources, which had drawbacks, with technology that didn't exist?

Is this question built on that same line of reasoning?

OK, I'll bite.

What are my choices?

 

[Bradskii]

OK, I'll bite.

What are my choices?

The question in the op is not directed at me. I'm entirely happy using radiocarbon dating. It's directed at those who think it's not valid. That would be someone like yourself. And the question is: what method do you think should be used instead.

If you don't think carbon14 is reliable, then bearing in mind the posts that explain why it is, tell us why you think it's unreliable and suggest an alternative. I'm not inclined to play whack-a-mole and keep suggesting methods for you to discount.

 

[HARK!]

It's directed at those who think it's not valid. That would be someone like yourself.

How did you come to that conclusion?

 

[Occams Barber]

How did you come to that conclusion?

I'm going to take a wild guess here.

Could it be because he (@Bradskii ) actually read the OP?

Bear in mind, this is for those people who do not think that carbon dating is worthwhile.

OB

 

[Hans Blaster]

If carbon dating is wrong, I don't want to be right.

 

[Bradskii]

How did you come to that conclusion?

All your posts have been negative and you even asked what choices you had, other then carbon14. Choices that you'd only need if you thought that carbon14 wasn't valid. So it was a logical conclusion.

If you think it's fine then the op doesn't apply to you. In which case it seems all you want to argue about is semantics.

 

[HARK!]

All your posts have been negative and you even asked what choices you had, other then carbon14. Choices that you'd only need if you thought that carbon14 wasn't valid. So it was a logical conclusion.

If you think it's fine then the op doesn't apply to you. In which case it seems all you want to argue about is semantics.

Words are important. It seems that you didn't understand my words. Speaking of semantics, can a wrong conclusion be a logical conclusion?

Sorry if you feel that I'm just being argumentative for addressing your strawman argument.