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

[Astrid]

In science - that is real science - the objective of observation and experimentation is to prove a hypothesis wrong. Good science with real logic makes predictions and develops tests to disprove a hypothesis. (Bad logic establishes a favorable outcome and then seeks supporting proof.)
One good counter-example proves a hypothesis wrong in real science. There are many more than one. I cited three. When a counter-example is available, it should be used to modify or reject the hypothesis.
Those that would reject the counter-examples and try to cling to the data that might support their belief are not actually doing good science.

The age of polar ice disproves "flood".
Simple.

 

[sjastro]

In science - that is real science - the objective of observation and experimentation is to prove a hypothesis wrong. Good science with real logic makes predictions and develops tests to disprove a hypothesis. (Bad logic establishes a favorable outcome and then seeks supporting proof.)
One good counter-example proves a hypothesis wrong in real science. There are many more than one. I cited three. When a counter-example is available, it should be used to modify or reject the hypothesis.
Those that would reject the counter-examples and try to cling to the data that might support their belief are not actually doing good science.

Where you looking in the mirror when compiling this post?
You have provided three examples of surfing the internet to find information to support your confirmation bias.
Real science involves peer review and consensus and looking at two at your references which originate from the Institute for Creation Research and Creation Ministries International both of which are renowned for producing pseudoscience, would never see the light of day in a reputable peer reviewed scientific journal.

Lets look at one of your examples.

A classic example is a basalt formation in Queensland, AU. This basalt flow completely encased some trees. The basalt dates with K-Ar to dates between 39 to 58 Million years while the completely encased wood dates to 29000 to 44000 years ago. Both the wood and the basalt were tested with multiple samples in multiple laboratories. This is hardly "overlap and support".

RC dating can be extended out to maximum age of no more than 70,000 years while K-Ar only applies to the dating of rocks and minerals.
The most obvious answer to this discrepancy is the larva flow around the tree was never a contemporary event and both dates reflect different time frames.

Here is an example of a tree growing out of a rock.

​

There is no reason to believe the tree and the encasing rock were formed at the same time, as it is unlikely to assume for the Queensland sample.
In fact it is ludicrous to use the Queensland sample as both dates contradict YEC.
If you want to argue both dates are incorrect then you run head on into the false dichotomy fallacy to justify YEC as mentioned in my previous post.

 

[Astrid]

Where you looking in the mirror when compiling this post?
You have provided three examples of surfing the internet to find information to support your confirmation bias.
Real science involves peer review and consensus and looking at two at your references which originate from the Institute for Creation Research and Creation Ministries International both of which are renowned for producing pseudoscience, would never see the light of day in a reputable peer reviewed scientific journal.

Lets look at one of your examples.


RC dating can be extended out to maximum age of no more than 70,000 years while K-Ar only applies to the dating of rocks and minerals.
The most obvious answer to this discrepancy is the larva flow around the tree was never a contemporary event and both dates reflect different time frames.

Here is an example of a tree growing out of a rock.

​

There is no reason to believe the tree and the encasing rock were formed at the same time, as it is unlikely to assume for the Queensland sample.
In fact it is ludicrous to use the Queensland sample as both dates contradict YEC.
If you want to argue both dates are incorrect then you run head on into the false dichotomy fallacy to justify YEC as mentioned in my previous post.

Is that a...polystrate tree???
It could prove yec!

 

[AV1611VET]

The age of polar ice disproves "flood".
Simple.

Only on paper; where I'm sure they can make that ant hill in grandma's back yard disprove the entire Old Testament, if they wanted to.

 

[sjastro]

Is that a...polystrate tree???
It could prove yec!

If this was the case YECists have a serious problem in being unable to distinguish between a real live tree and a fossilized one.

 

[Shemjaza]

Only on paper; where I'm sure they can make that ant hill in grandma's back yard disprove the entire Old Testament, if they wanted to.

Sort of, but not really.

There will be plenty evidence in the hill that is completely inconsistent with a literal Old Testament... but given that God is attributed with being both omnipotent and unknowable, literally anything is equally explainable by his plans and actions.

 

[Astrid]

.

 

[Astrid]

If this was the case YECists have a serious problem in being unable to distinguish between a real live tree and a fossilized one.

Well not really. The point of polystratism, as conceived
in yecland, is that the strata that take millions of evoyears
to form can and do get formed in days!
Mt St Helens proves it! Ivd heard about that.

 

[Dennis_Hogg]

The most obvious answer to this discrepancy is the larva flow around the tree was never a contemporary event and both dates reflect different time frames.

There is no reason to believe the tree and the encasing rock were formed at the same time, as it is unlikely to assume for the Queensland sample.
In fact it is ludicrous to use the Queensland sample as both dates contradict YEC.

I guess that you did not actually read the citations. Unlike your picture of a tree, these wood samples were completely encased in lava (basalt) as the lava flowed over a forest. Perhaps you should read the cite as your comment "There is no reason to believe the tree and the encasing rock were formed at the same time" might be reconsidered.
As for your comment "In fact it is ludicrous to use the Queensland sample as both dates contradict YEC.", both dates become valid counter-examples of a hypothesis. This is not about YEC
As for your comment about pseudo-science, perhaps you could read the cited articles and point out what exactly would not stand up as real science.
Real science doesn't censor opposing data. Anyone is welcomed to present data.
In some fields of study, peer review has become a strong form of censorship where opposing data is rebuffed. Notice that I am referring to data and observational science and not to conclusions.

 

[Shemjaza]

I guess that you did not actually read the citations. Unlike your picture of a tree, these wood samples were completely encased in lava (basalt) as the lava flowed over a forest. Perhaps you should read the cite as your comment "There is no reason to believe the tree and the encasing rock were formed at the same time" might be reconsidered.
As for your comment "In fact it is ludicrous to use the Queensland sample as both dates contradict YEC.", both dates become valid counter-examples of a hypothesis. This is not about
As for your comment about pseudo-science, perhaps you could read the cited articles and point out what exactly would not stand up as real science.
Real science doesn't censor opposing data. Anyone is welcomed to present data.
In some fields of study, peer review has become a strong form of censorship where opposing data is rebuffed. Notice that I am referring to data and observational science and not to conclusions.

No, I read some of his paper... and as i said a tree could absolutely grow through weathered basalt and siltstone.

Not mention that a single flood couldn't place layers of dense basalt over the top of silt layers.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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"

That's not the assumption. Past C14 levels are determined through calibration.

2. The concentrations of C14 in the atmosphere become the concentrations in every living being during the time that they lived

[Citation needed] I've heard dozens of C14-related creationist claims, but never this one. Got a source for this claim?

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 amount of water in the atmosphere has *nothing* to do with C14 levels or C14/C12 ratios. The carbon cycle matters, nitrogen in the atmosphere matters, the cosmic ray rate matters, but not the level of water in the atmosphere.

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.

How exactly does that work?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Not mention that a single flood couldn't place layers of dense basalt over the top of silt layers.

Unless it was a flood basalt.

 

[Shemjaza]

Unless it was a flood basalt.

It gets in the way of there being a totally, real science version of the flood if every tiny detail needs to be spiced up with weird inexplicable miracles.

 

[Astrid]

I guess that you did not actually read the citations. Unlike your picture of a tree, these wood samples were completely encased in lava (basalt) as the lava flowed over a forest. Perhaps you should read the cite as your comment "There is no reason to believe the tree and the encasing rock were formed at the same time" might be reconsidered.
As for your comment "In fact it is ludicrous to use the Queensland sample as both dates contradict YEC.", both dates become valid counter-examples of a hypothesis. This is not about YEC
As for your comment about pseudo-science, perhaps you could read the cited articles and point out what exactly would not stand up as real science.
Real science doesn't censor opposing data. Anyone is welcomed to present data.
In some fields of study, peer review has become a strong form of censorship where opposing data is rebuffed. Notice that I am referring to data and observational science and not to conclusions.

Intellectually honest people do not censor from their
minds info that disproves their beliefs.

Behold Antarctic ice disproving the flood story.
You cannot successfully " rebuff" it.

Let's see you actually honour the " observational
science" you claim to value- or reveal to all that it's
just a pose.

 

[Dennis_Hogg]

That's not the assumption. Past C14 levels are determined through calibration.

This is exactly what Libby did. (For those not aware, Willard Libby was awarded the 1960 Nobel prize in Chemistry for developing the carbon dating technique)
In the absence of any historical data concerning the intensity of cosmic radiation, Libby simply assumed that it had been constant. He reasoned that a state of equilibrium must exist wherein the rate of carbon-14 production was equal to its rate of decay, dating back millennia. (Fortunately for him, this was later proven to be generally true.)
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/education/whatischemistry/landmarks/radiocarbon-dating.html
[Citation needed] I've heard dozens of C14-related creationist claims, but never this one. Got a source for this claim?
This is also from Libby
Libby’s next task was to study the movement of carbon through the carbon cycle. In a system where carbon-14 is readily exchanged throughout the cycle, the ratio of carbon-14 to other carbon isotopes should be the same in a living organism as in the atmosphere. However, the rates of movement of carbon throughout the cycle were not then known. Libby and graduate student Ernest Anderson (1920–2013) calculated the mixing of carbon across these different reservoirs, particularly in the oceans, which constitute the largest reservoir. Their results predicted the distribution of carbon-14 across features of the carbon cycle and gave Libby encouragement that radiocarbon dating would be successful.
IBID

The amount of water in the atmosphere has *nothing* to do with C14 levels or C14/C12 ratios. The carbon cycle matters, nitrogen in the atmosphere matters, the cosmic ray rate matters, but not the level of water in the atmosphere.

We were not there to observe the antediluvian atmosphere. From what we are told, it rained for 40 days straight. There must have been a lot of water in the atmosphere. Surface barometric pressure could easily have been many times the present 14.7psi. Such an atmosphere should have been very stable providing a constant surface temperature. Since water vapor is so much lighter than Nitrogen or Oxygen, the upper atmosphere would have been primarily water vapor. This would shield a lot of nitrogen from high energy neutrons making the C14 production much lower.

 

[Astrid]

We were not there to observe the antediluvian atmosphere. From what we are told, it rained for 40 days straight. There must have been a lot of water in the atmosphere. Surface barometric pressure could easily have been many times the present 14.7psi. Such an atmosphere should have been very stable providing a constant surface temperature. Since water vapor is so much lighter than Nitrogen or Oxygen, the upper atmosphere would have been primarily water vapor. This would shield a lot of nitrogen from high energy neutrons making the C14 production much lower.

As there was no flood, calculations based on it are gibberish.

 

[Dennis_Hogg]

Intellectually honest people do not censor from their
minds info that disproves their beliefs.

Behold Antarctic ice disproving the flood story.
You cannot successfully " rebuff" it.

Let's see you actually honour the " observational
science" you claim to value- or reveal to all that it's
just a pose.

Would you please elaborate on this "Antarctic ice disproving the flood story" a bit?
In a flood model, a very massive ice cap would form on both poles.
A larger percentage of the earth's heating occurs over land than water because water is much more reflective. The flood lasted a year. During this year we would expect massive ice caps to form. We see evidence of the north pole ice cap extending as far south as the north central United States carving out massive lake beds and depositing very large rocks in unusual places. The south pole ice cap terminated in the oceans.

 

[Astrid]

Would you please elaborate on this "Antarctic ice disproving the flood story" a bit?
In a flood model, a very massive ice cap would form on both poles.
A larger percentage of the earth's heating occurs over land than water because water is much more reflective. The flood lasted a year. During this year we would expect massive ice caps to form. We see evidence of the north pole ice cap extending as far south as the north central United States carving out massive lake beds and depositing very large rocks in unusual places. The south pole ice cap terminated in the oceans.

All your " science" talk you don't know and
dont investigate?

Unmelted snow builds up in annual layers.

These can be counted.

Antarctic ice is tens of thousands of years old.

All of it with fine layered structure containing
varying amounts of volcanic ash, dust, pollen,
sulfuric acid etc, a structure impossible to make
with some specious flood "model".

You might comparably try to convince judge Judy
that you should get your damage deposit back coz
the mess happened a few hours after you left.

Examination reveals moldy stuck down pizza
with receipt from the day you moved in, layered
with cat poop, cigarette butts, dirty clothes, spilled
beer and all such detritus of parties ankle deep
throughout the house.

Impossible.

You really have never heard of ice core studies?

 

[AV1611VET]

Behold Antarctic ice disproving the flood story.
You cannot successfully " rebuff" it.

Cannot successfully rebuff what?

Antarctica didn't exist at the time of the Flood -- let alone Antarctica ice.

 

[Dennis_Hogg]

Unmelted snow builds up in annual layers.

These can be counted.

Antarctic ice is tens of thousands of years old.

All of it with fine layered structure containing
varying amounts of volcanic ash, dust, pollen,
sulfuric acid etc, a structure impossible to make
with some specious flood "model".

So how sure are you that these are "annual" layers. Are you sure that "once per snowstorm" isn't more credible? Having grown up in snow country I have seen layers in snow with blown dirt in between.
Are you sure that the stratification is not a result of incredible shear? We know that the ice flows. Whenever the shear forces exceed the shear strength of a solid, it liquifies. Is it not credible to expect these events? Wouldn't that cause stratification?
A claim that these layers are annual has to discount other valid explanations before it can be considered a reliable dating method.
World war 2 airplanes were found 260 feet deep in Greenland ice back in 1988 - many miles from where they landed. (Reported in the NY times and elsewhere). If this is a credible dating method, then how old is this airplane wing?