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

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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.

I did answer your question. I said:
So it is just you posting an edited version of the OP question then.

That's not a rebuttal.

 

[HARK!]

I did answer your question. I said:
So it is just you posting an edited version of the OP question then.

That's not a rebuttal.

It seems that we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It seems that we will just have to agree to disagree.

I will wholeheartedly agree on that since I do feel we will end up just going round and round in circles on this.

 

[Astrophile]

It has nothing to do with my response.

Perhaps not, but I still think that my question is relevant to the subject of the thread.

 

[Mountainmike]

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?



That makes absolutely no sense.

Your question is far too digital, “wrong” “ right” which is not the real world of science.

It is true There is indeed a correlation between age and carbon isotopes. Which makes it a useful indicator within limits. But in practice it has substantial limitations and makes both small and large errors. So it is not definitive. It is an indicator not an absolute statement of age.

It is also not just a question of measurement. Sampling/ pre treatment / characterisation or more generally “Association” is one of the biggest problems, so whether the sample you test truly reflects the artefact you want to test..

You will not find a perfect alternative.
Welcome to real world metrology.

 

[ruthiesea]

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

It’s based on the G-d created universe. Hahem created matter that changes form at a certain rate. Radiometric dating just measures that change. He created it and gave us the mental capacity to use it.

 

[BerthaSeven]

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.

I thought the point was to find errors in radiometric dating with the goal of destroying the concept. NOT with an aim to replace it with anything.

Isn't that how it all works?

 

[BerthaSeven]

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.

That isn't how rate kinetics work. Rate kinetics can be measured even at ranges less than their full decay time. Radioactive decay comports with a type of rate kinetic called a "First Order" rate kinetic which is dependent only on the initial amount of the material decaying. It follows a very well-understood curve.

Given that we know a great deal about the rate kinetic it is hard to imagine why at some later point in the curve it would go differently. To my knowledge we know of no first order rate kinetic which changes further out in time. (And this type of rate kinetic is also integral to a wide variety of CHEMICAL, not just nuclear, reactions.)

 

[BerthaSeven]

Nothing.

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

I understand sometimes it is necessary to NOT ask questions. But that's a hard sell for a species whose question-asking has led them to become the apex predator who pretty much controls most of the earth and done so in record time for any species.

Sure bad things happen when you go poking reality with a stick to probe it, and this particular ape has pretty much tried them all. But overall the good has outweighed the bad to date. Probably not much longer because we don't have the discipline to utilize that which we discover rationally.

But I am not entirely convinced that willful ignorance is a good alternative.

 

[Astrid]

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?

Bad analogy since carbon dating does exist.
And it works.
Cars exist and work.
If we just wish to dismiss the faulty there goes you
and I, the Bible, and all living things.

 

[HARK!]

Bad analogy since carbon dating does exist.

The OP presents a supposition. I responded to the supposition, which is the topic of discussion here.

 

[Astrid]

The OP presents a supposition. I responded to the supposition, which is the topic of discussion here.

Whatevs

 

[The happy Objectivist]

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.

It shouldn't be replaced. Those people should just be told that they are wrong. Their interest, in my experience, is not to prove anything but to undermine. They are not going to accept any finding that disagrees with their interpretation of the scriptures.

My understanding is that carbon dating is useful for dating organic samples back to about 50,000 years. It has been checked using lake varves and tree rings and ice layers so it is pretty well established for dating things in that narrow range.

It's not used to find the age of the Earth.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I swear by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."-Any Rand

 

[Shemjaza]

It shouldn't be replaced. Those people should just be told that they are wrong. Their interest, in my experience, is not to prove anything but to undermine. They are not going to accept any finding that disagrees with their interpretation of the scriptures.

My understanding is that carbon dating is useful for dating organic samples back to about 50,000 years. It has been checked using lake varves and tree rings and ice layers so it is pretty well established for dating things in that narrow range.

It's not used to find the age of the Earth.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I swear by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."-Any Rand

It does help to put the lower bound far beyond 6 to 10 thousand years though.

 

[keith99]

It does help to put the lower bound far beyond 6 to 10 thousand years though.

There are hundreds if not thousands of geologic formations that do the same.

The White Cliffs of Dover come to mind.

 

[Shemjaza]

There are hundreds if not thousands of geologic formations that do the same.

The White Cliffs of Dover come to mind.

True, but in a Creationism Vs Radiometric conflict, then carbon dating is all you need for evidence against recent creation or recent world wide flood.

 

[Astrid]

There are hundreds if not thousands of geologic formations that do the same.

The White Cliffs of Dover come to mind.

Polar ice is very obvious

 

[Dennis_Hogg]

I don't think as Christians that we need to doubt that radio-carbon dating, or any other fission can show a decomposition rate. We should accept that the physics of decay is actually correct.
Where the evolutionary claims fail is with the assumptions that are used for dating. The assumptions that are flawed are:
1. The concentrations of initial C14 in the atmosphere are the same now as they have "always been"
2. The concentrations of C14 in the atmosphere become the concentrations in every living being during the time that they lived
The first assumption is wrong because the atmosphere before Noah's flood contained very much more water which would almost eliminate the production of C14. Shortly after the flood, the C14 levels would be very small, and so everything remaining from that era would appear much older when "dated" using assumptions that C14 was always the same.
The second assumption is also flawed because for unknown reasons some living things can selectively absorb C12 from the atmosphere and reject C14 making such things look as much as 3000 years dead.
In summary, Christians should not reject the science (the real science) of radioactive decay. We should reject the false assumptions of uniformitarianism that are made without justification.

 

[Astrid]

I don't think as Christians that we need to doubt that radio-carbon dating, or any other fission can show a decomposition rate. We should accept that the physics of decay is actually correct.
Where the evolutionary claims fail is with the assumptions that are used for dating. The assumptions that are flawed are:
1. The concentrations of initial C14 in the atmosphere are the same now as they have "always been"
2. The concentrations of C14 in the atmosphere become the concentrations in every living being during the time that they lived
The first assumption is wrong because the atmosphere before Noah's flood contained very much more water which would almost eliminate the production of C14. Shortly after the flood, the C14 levels would be very small, and so everything remaining from that era would appear much older when "dated" using assumptions that C14 was always the same.
The second assumption is also flawed because for unknown reasons some living things can selectively absorb C12 from the atmosphere and reject C14 making such things look as much as 3000 years dead.
In summary, Christians should not reject the science (the real science) of radioactive decay. We should reject the false assumptions of uniformitarianism that are made without justification.

There was no flood.
Carbon dating is not an "evolutionary" claim.
The assumptions you speak of are nowhere actually assumed.

Care to reveal the source of your information?

 

[Shemjaza]

I don't think as Christians that we need to doubt that radio-carbon dating, or any other fission can show a decomposition rate. We should accept that the physics of decay is actually correct.
Where the evolutionary claims fail is with the assumptions that are used for dating. The assumptions that are flawed are:
1. The concentrations of initial C14 in the atmosphere are the same now as they have "always been"
2. The concentrations of C14 in the atmosphere become the concentrations in every living being during the time that they lived
The first assumption is wrong because the atmosphere before Noah's flood contained very much more water which would almost eliminate the production of C14. Shortly after the flood, the C14 levels would be very small, and so everything remaining from that era would appear much older when "dated" using assumptions that C14 was always the same.
The second assumption is also flawed because for unknown reasons some living things can selectively absorb C12 from the atmosphere and reject C14 making such things look as much as 3000 years dead.
In summary, Christians should not reject the science (the real science) of radioactive decay. We should reject the false assumptions of uniformitarianism that are made without justification.

You ignore that the differing methods of radiometric dating overlap and support each other and that non radiometric dating can also be used to support those timelines.

Of course the most significant issue with your timeline is that there is no physical evidence to support a world wide flood at any time when humanity existed.