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

[HARK!]

That's not even remotely the same sort of thing.

Yes it is.

Carbon dating is an actual, workable and testable science. But if people say it's wrong, then something has to replace it.

You put forth the supposition that it can't be trusted. Again, there is no need to replace what can't be trusted. If you don't trust sasquatch; what do you replace sasquatch with?

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.

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

If it is wrong; then acknowledging that it is wrong is right.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You put forth the supposition that it can't be trusted. Again, there is no need to replace what can't be trusted. If you don't trust sasquatch; what do you replace sasquatch with?

I'm not the one claiming that carbon dating is wrong. I'm asking those who say it is wrong to say what it should be replaced with. Notice the first word of the thread title: If. I'm asking a question, not making a definitive statement.

Wrong.

Not at all.

If it is wrong; then acknowledging that it is wrong is right.

Acknowledging it is wrong also leads to whatever is wrong being replaced with whatever is right. That is how science work.s

 

[cappycappy]

I think many Christians have a hard time with carbon dating because it conflicts with their Biblical view that the earth is only 5,000 - 6,000 years old.

I have a friend who believes dinosaur fossils/bones are a hoax. She does not believe dinosaurs ever existed. She quit attending a university that was teaching things like dinosaurs, old earth, etc. Almost nothing in science lined up with her Christian beliefs so she rejected education altogether.

 

[essentialsaltes]

This is an entertaining question.

Let me try some.

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

Much as I predicted. 'Science is an illusion. Knowledge is impossible. There is just no way of knowing.'

It's been interesting watching the antiscience traditionalists switch from pillorying the postmodernists to becoming them.

 

[Tinker Grey]

It's been interesting watching the antiscience traditionalists switch from pillorying the postmodernists to becoming them.

This. Reality is unknowable, but the spiritual realm is.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Another topic full of science, sorcery, and witchcraft to trick believers into following the devil.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Another topic full of science, sorcery, and witchcraft to trick believers into following the devil.

Nope. Not at all.
And I will be blunt: I feel sorry for anyone who feels that science threatens their beliefs.

 

[AV1611VET]

I feel sorry for anyone who feels that science threatens their beliefs.

Science shouldn't threaten anyone, since the Bible puts science in its place.

Jeremiah 5:22 Fear ye not me? saith the LORD: will ye not tremble at my presence, which have placed the sand for the bound of the sea by a perpetual decree, that it cannot pass it: and though the waves thereof toss themselves, yet can they not prevail; though they roar, yet can they not pass over it?

God is a God of boundaries.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Science shouldn't threaten anyone, since the Bible puts science in its place.

Jeremiah 5:22 Fear ye not me? saith the LORD: will ye not tremble at my presence, which have placed the sand for the bound of the sea by a perpetual decree, that it cannot pass it: and though the waves thereof toss themselves, yet can they not prevail; though they roar, yet can they not pass over it?

God is a God of boundaries.

And yet there are people who think that the Bible and God are threatened by science.

 

[AV1611VET]

And yet there are people who think that the Bible and God are threatened by science.

Yes.

Just as scientists can fear the Bible, Bible followers can fear science.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes.

Just as scientists can fear the Bible, Bible followers can fear science.

It ain't a fear of the Bible. It's a fear of Biblical literalists.

 

[GirdYourLoins]

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

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.

 

[essentialsaltes]

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.

One of the most interesting 'natural experiments' is the Oklo 'nuclear reactor'. Almost 2 billion years ago, uranium was so concentrated in one area that there was some slight additional radioactive fission. A natural nuclear reactor, due to naturally 'enriched' uranium. Analyzing the daughter nuclei present in samples allows us to conclude that the radioactivity processes are constant over that time span within pretty strict limits.

For 'young earth' scenarios where we tinker with decay rates in order to collapse billions of years into thousands of years, the release of that much nuclear energy in that short a time would vaporize the earth.

 

[sjastro]

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.

On the basis of your original post there are a number of misconceptions you have made.
First of all one doesn’t have to wait around for 5730 years to determine if the half life of ¹⁴C is correct.
Accelerated mass spectrometry can accurately measure changes in ¹⁴C over very small time intervals.

The reduction of ¹⁴C in a sample follows the decay equation dN/dt = -kN where N is the amount of ¹⁴C present, k is a constant.
The solution to the equation is N = N₀exp(-kt) where N₀ is the initial amount of ¹⁴C present.
Since the equation is an exponential function we can plot logₑ N against t and extrapolate the results to find the half-life of ¹⁴C.

On the question of whether the reaction rate changes with time, this was addressed in my previous post where comparisons can be made with alternate dating methods and the answer is no.
Scientists however are aware that environmental factors can affect the ¹⁴C/¹²C ratio which can vary with time and requires a calibration curve.

Carbon did not exist at the Big Bang; the primordial elements were hydrogen, helium and some lithium.
Carbon was formed later on through fusion of lighter elements via supernova explosions which provided sufficient kinetic energy to overcome the Coulomb barrier and through fusion in the cores of low mass stars.

 

[HARK!]

I'm not the one claiming that carbon dating is wrong. I'm asking those who say it is wrong to say what it should be replaced with. Notice the first word of the thread title: If. I'm asking a question, not making a definitive statement.

I'm well aware of that. Why does that matter?

Not at all.

Proof? You do believe in proof, no?

Acknowledging it is wrong also leads to whatever is wrong being replaced with whatever is right. That is how science work.s

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.) This scientifically debunks the sasquatch siting. What do you replace it with?

Are you saying that there has never been a hypothesis, which failed under test, and was replaced with nothing; because it was a goofy hypothesis to begin with?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm well aware of that. Why does that matter?

Because you're treating the OP like I made a definitive statement not asking a question.

Proof? You do believe in proof, no?

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

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.) This scientifically debunks the sasquatch siting. What do you replace it with?

Are you saying that there has never been a hypothesis, which failed under test, and was replaced with nothing; because it was a goofy hypothesis to begin with?

Argument from reductio ad absurdum. Can you actually answer the question properly and sensibly, or is insipid comments all you have?

 

[HARK!]

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

I accept evidence too. Do you have any?

 

[HARK!]

Argument from reductio ad absurdum. Can you actually answer the question properly and sensibly, or is insipid comments all you have?

I already answered it, more than once. It's a nonsensical question.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I accept evidence too. Do you have any?

Geocentrism was replaced with heliocentrism.

I already answered it, more than once.

No, you made stupid and asinine comments.

 

[Bradskii]

This scientifically debunks the sasquatch siting.

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'.