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

[HARK!]

I'm going to take a wild guess here.

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

I read it as a hypothetical question.

So tell me; what brings you here?

 

[Bradskii]

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

Considering that the op is asking for alternatives to carbon14 if one thought it wasn't a valid method of dating and you actually asked for alternatives, then yes - it's logical to assume that you actually thought it wasn't a valid method.

If you think that carbon14 is ok, then you don't. To say that you arguing why we'd need another method is kinda missing the point of the op is being very generous to say the least.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

See: Hasty Generalization Fallacy

I'm going to call it what I see it as: trolling.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Nothing.

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

Funny you bring that up.
According to Dominionist theology, I am an abomination that must be killed.
My being born racially impure, makes me an abomination.
As does my inability to believe the claims made by the various american christian fundamentalist sects that fall under the Dominionist heading.

 

[Astrophile]

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 haven't 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 hasn't 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 doesn't 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 couldn't prove my questions were not valid and accepted they could not refute these doubts.

There are many radioactive substances that have much shorter half-lives than carbon-14; these have been observed throughout their decay until the last atom has gone, and they have shown the same exponential decay, with the same half-life, throughout the process. What reason do you have to suppose that long-lived radionuclides behave differently and change their half-lives? Perhaps you should read The Age of the Earth by G. Brent Dalrymple; chapter 3 gives a detailed explanation of radioactivity and modern radiometric dating methods.

Carbon-14 has not existed since the big bang; it is formed in the atmosphere by reactions between cosmic ray particles and atmospheric nitrogen-14. In any case, both carbon and nitrogen were produced by nuclear reactions in stars, not by the big bang.

 

[Astrophile]

Wrong.

Let's take it from the top.

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

If the observed differences in the C-14/C-12 ratio in ancient organic matter are not measurements of the age of this matter resulting from the radioactive decay of C-14, what are they measurements of?

 

[Tom 1]

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.

2 litres of coffee, a night spent reading revelation, an abacus and maybe a handy vision at the end of it. Whatever comes out of that can then be endlessly extrapolated from.

 

[HARK!]

If the observed differences in the C-14/C-12 ratio in ancient organic matter are not measurements of the age of this matter resulting from the radioactive decay of C-14, what are they measurements of?

Non sequitur

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Non sequitur

No, it is a pertinent question.

 

[HARK!]

No, it is a pertinent question.

It has nothing to do with my response.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It has nothing to do with my response.

But it is a pertinent question though. And also, no offense, but your response was not a response in the slightest.

 

[HARK!]

But it is a pertinent question though. And also, no offense, but your response was not a response in the slightest.

Thank you for acknowledging that it has nothing to do with my rebuttal. My rebuttal stands.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Thank you for acknowledging that it has nothing to do with my rebuttal. My rebuttal stands.

Your 'rebuttal' was just you going: "If Carbon Dating is wrong... then what to replace it with" That's not a rebuttal. That's just repeating the OP question.

You had no rebuttal and have given no rebuttal throughout this thread.

 

[HARK!]

Your 'rebuttal' was just you going: "If Carbon Dating is wrong... then what to replace it with" That's not a rebuttal. That's just repeating the OP question.

I'll let the discerning readers come to their own conclusions; but thank you for your biased opinion.

I trust that most readers will exceed a superficial analysis before forming an opinion.

You are free to believe as you wish.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'll let the discerning readers come to their own conclusions; but thank you for your biased opinion.

I trust that most readers will exceed a superficial analysis before forming an opinion.

You are free to believe as you wish.

All you did was ask a question and before that, throughout the thread, was to make claims about myself that you made no attempt of backing up.
Asking an edited question is not a rebuttal, it's you asking an edited question. In what world is that a rebuttal?

 

[HARK!]

All you did was ask a question and before that, throughout the thread, was to make claims about myself that you made no attempt of backing up.
Asking an edited question is not a rebuttal, it's you asking an edited question. In what world is that a rebuttal?

What question? Have you been following the conversation?

It seems that your mind is made up. Again, I'll let the discerning readers make up their own minds.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What question? Have you been following the conversation?

It seems that your mind is made up. Again, I'll let the discerning readers make up their own minds.

Did you write post #46 or not? This post:

Wrong.

Let's take it from the top.

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

Which is you just posting an edited version of the OP question, or is it not? You posted nothing else after it nor said anything else, just asking that question.

 

[HARK!]

Did you write post #46 or not? This post:


Which is you just posting an edited version of the OP question, or is it not?

Funny, I don't see a question in that post. I can usually tell when I've asked a question. I leave a curly punctuation mark at the end of the question, as a reminder that I had asked a question.

Can you point out that curly punctuation mark for me?

Maybe you're right. Maybe it was really a question; and I just forgot to add the curly punctuation mark, to remind myself that I had asked a question that I don't remember asking.

It's hard for me to remember when the lights are flickering.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Funny, I don't see a question in that post. I can usually tell when I've asked a question. I leave a curly punctuation mark at the end of the question, as a reminder that I had asked a question.

Can you point out that curly punctuation mark for me?

Maybe you're right. Maybe it was really a question; and I just forgot to add the curly punctuation mark, to remind myself that I had asked a question that I don't remember asking.

It's hard for me to remember when the lights are flickering.

So it is just you posting an edited version of the OP question then.

That's not a rebuttal.

 

[HARK!]

So it is just you posting an edited version of the OP question then.

That's not a rebuttal.

You didn't answer my question.

So now we have come full circle again. I'll just let the discerning readers come to their own conclusions.