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

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm calling this my own sort of challenge thread here.

Very often on this forum and the C&E forum, I see a lot of Creationist/people who do not accept evolution or anything scientific even remotely linked to evolution say that carbon dating is incorrect, it's fallible, it's bad science and should not be trusted whatsoever.

Let's for a second take that line of argument as correct. That carbon dating is incorrect and should not be trusted.

What do you think it should be replaced with?

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

 

[ruthiesea]

Geez, dude! The answer is so obvious I can’t believe you think it’s a challenge. You replace all radiometric dating with the Bible/Quran/Nasadiya Sukta/any other religious book that people believe is completely accurate. Never mind that they don’t agree with each other.

 

[Petros2015]

Tinder?

 

[ottawak]

I'm calling this my own sort of challenge thread here.

Very often on this forum and the C&E forum, I see a lot of Creationist/people who do not accept evolution or anything scientific even remotely linked to evolution say that carbon dating is incorrect, it's fallible, it's bad science and should not be trusted whatsoever.

Let's for a second take that line of argument as correct. That carbon dating is incorrect and should not be trusted.

What do you think it should be replaced with?

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

Are you ruling out radiometric dating in general or just carbon dating?

 

[essentialsaltes]

'Now that we have jettisoned these objective methods, we can see more clearly that knowledge is impossible, and the age of that mummy comes down to a matter of personal faith.'

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Are you ruling out radiometric dating in general or just carbon dating?

I think that a lot of the people who have a problem with carbon dating have problems with radiometric dating in general. Though that's more of a case by case thing for each person.

 

[sjastro]

Of course there is nothing wrong with carbon dating there are other dating techniques which overlap the age range and can be used where applicable.

Commonly used methods are given here.

An example is pottery; the pottery can be dated using luminescence (thermally stimulated) and any organic residue inside the pottery be radiocarbon dated.
There are no surprises the age when the pottery was fired and the organic residue are compatible.

 

[Believer000]

Carbon dating is man made, - this is why it is so inaccurate. The truth comes from God and his written Word.

 

[Occams Barber]

Carbon dating is man made, - this is why it is so inaccurate. The truth comes from God and his written Word.

So are clocks.

OB

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Carbon dating is man made, - this is why it is so inaccurate. The truth comes from God and his written Word.

Carbon dating is a measurement of natural carbon. If you believe God created the world, then it's God-made - a truth more fundamental than the written word.

 

[Opdrey]

I'm calling this my own sort of challenge thread here.

Very often on this forum and the C&E forum, I see a lot of Creationist/people who do not accept evolution or anything scientific even remotely linked to evolution say that carbon dating is incorrect, it's fallible, it's bad science and should not be trusted whatsoever.

Let's for a second take that line of argument as correct. That carbon dating is incorrect and should not be trusted.

What do you think it should be replaced with?

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

1. Stories of old told by the village elder who knew someone who had heard about it years ago.

2. Bishop Ussher

3. Quadrapole Accelerator Mass Spectrometric Exegesis.

 

[Opdrey]

Carbon dating is man made, - this is why it is so inaccurate. The truth comes from God and his written Word.

Man made? Ummmmmm.... ummmm.... hmmmm..... Would you care to expand on that a bit?

 

[Opdrey]

So are clocks.

Yes and changing the clocks twice a year shows how flawed man's actions are! We should go with God Savings Time (GST).

 

[Bradskii]

I'm calling this my own sort of challenge thread here.

Very often on this forum and the C&E forum, I see a lot of Creationist/people who do not accept evolution or anything scientific even remotely linked to evolution say that carbon dating is incorrect, it's fallible, it's bad science and should not be trusted whatsoever.

Let's for a second take that line of argument as correct. That carbon dating is incorrect and should not be trusted.

What do you think it should be replaced with?

What do they want to use instead? Well, rather obviously I would have thought, it will be anything that gives the dates that they want.

 

[HARK!]

What do you think it should be replaced with?

This is an entertaining question.

Let me try some.

If unicorns don't exist; what should we replace them with?

If water dowsing shouldn't be trusted; what should we replace it with?

That was fun.

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?

 

[GirdYourLoins]

Carbon 14 has a half life of 5730 year or thereabouts. We've had the ability to actually see the state of carbon atoms for less than 100 years. We havent had sufficient time to watch carbon decay to actually witness its rate of decay. The half life of carbon is based on taking the different states we can see carbon in now and trying to calculate the rate of decay from what we have been able to witness in a relatively short time.
I've had the conversation with some very intelligent people and asked them to help me understand how we can be certain the assumption is correct. I have introduced some of my doubts such as how can we be sure the rate of decay has been consistent over that period of time and environmental changes or something hasnt altered that rate. We are also told that no new matter can be made, so if the matter in carbon has existed since the big bang how do we know age doesnt change how it behaves and its rate of decay.
I've asked these questions of scientists (well, people who did science up to degree level) and they ultimately said they couldnt prove my questions were not valid and accepted they could not refute these doubts.

 

[Bradskii]

Carbon 14 has a half life of 5730 year or thereabouts. We've had the ability to actually see the state of carbon atoms for less than 100 years. We havent had sufficient time to watch carbon decay to actually witness its rate of decay. The half life of carbon is based on taking the different states we can see carbon in now and trying to calculate the rate of decay from what we have been able to witness in a relatively short time.
I've had the conversation with some very intelligent people and asked them to help me understand how we can be certain the assumption is correct. I have introduced some of my doubts such as how can we be sure the rate of decay has been consistent over that period of time and environmental changes or something hasnt altered that rate. We are also told that no new matter can be made, so if the matter in carbon has existed since the big bang how do we know age doesnt change how it behaves and its rate of decay.
I've asked these questions of scientists (well, people who did science up to degree level) and they ultimately said they couldnt prove my questions were not valid and accepted they could not refute these doubts.

It matches dates that have been determined by other methods. For example, the Great Pyramid of Giza is known to have been built around 2,600 BC - or 4,600 years ago. Radiometric dating agrees with this.

And other methods of dating using radioactive decay overlap regarding the spread of dates that they are considered to be usefully accurate. And they match. Which means that radiocative half life has either been determined accurately or different elements have independently changed their rate of radioactive decay exactly to match each other. Which is utterly nonsensical.

 

[AV1611VET]

Let's for a second take that line of argument as correct. That carbon dating is incorrect and should not be trusted.

What do you think it should be replaced with?

Nothing.

Unless your desire to know how old something is supersedes your right to exist, don't worry about how old it is.

 

[Occams Barber]

We are also told that no new matter can be made, so if the matter in carbon has existed since the big bang how do we know age doesnt change how it behaves and its rate of decay.

Matter can be converted into energy and vice versa. Atoms of one element can also convert into atoms of another element through radioactive decay. This is one of the principles of radiometric dating.

Carbon atoms were not formed in the Big Bang. They are a product of nuclear fusion in dying stars. The most common isotope of carbon is C12 which is stable.

The isotope used in carbon dating is C14. C14 is unstable (i.e. radioactive). C14 is being made around you as we speak. C14 is continually formed in nature by the interaction of neutrons with Nitrogen 14 in the Earth’s atmosphere. That means Nitrogen 14 is continuously being turned into Carbon 14.

The proportion of C14 in a living organism is proportional to the proportion of C 14 in the atmosphere. When an organism dies it ceases to take on C 14 and since it is radioactive, C14 begins to decay to C12. The proportion of C14 to C12 begins to change.

C14 decay rates are calibrated against known variations in the proportion of C14 in the atmosphere. C14 decay is also calibrated by comparison to decay rates of other elemental isotopes.

As @Bradskii has already explained in post #17, measuring the proportion of C14 in a dead organism against a known decay rate (i.e. C14's half life) indicates how much time has elapsed since death.

I sincerely suggest you take on a little more info on this topic before holding forth on a subject you obviously do not understand.

OB

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This is an entertaining question.

Let me try some.

If unicorns don't exist; what should we replace them with?

If water dowsing shouldn't be trusted; what should we replace it with?

That was fun.

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's not even remotely the same sort of thing. Carbon dating is an actual, workable and testable science. But if people say it's wrong, then something has to replace it. That is a fact of science; if something is shown to be wrong, it is replaced with something that is shown to be right.

So if carbon dating is wrong, then what is right then?

Nothing.

Unless your desire to know how old something is supersedes your right to exist, don't worry about how old it is.

That makes absolutely no sense.