Quote:

---

Well...except they are not really dubious. If the science behind them wasn't generally accurate, then our formulas for radioactive decay would not be accurate and we'd have likely created a horrible tragedy via our early testing of nuclear weapons.

---

What a pile of baloney and an intellectually lazy argument. The dating theories are dubious for lots of reasons that have nothing to do with current decay rates. For example, two unprovable assumptions of all dating methodologies based on radioactive decay are:

1) That the decay rates have remained constant across millions, even billions, of years; and
2) That the element the decay rate of which is being measured started off with 100% of it being the parent (is that the correct term?) isotope or element.

Neither of those assumptions have any bearing whatsoever on testing of nuclear weapons.

And we know that those assumptions are wrong with C14 dating, the only radioisotope dating mechanism we can actually test. C14 scholars recognize that its decay rates have varied over time and that the starting point for the C14/C12 ratios varied due to a variety of factors, such as proximity to upwelling of "old water" that's free of C14 in the easter Mediterranean or possibly proximity to sources of gas release, gas that's comprised primarily of C12, not C14.

Here's an example of a paper written to address those issues with regard to C14 dates:

Wiener, Malcolm H. "Problems in the Measurement, Calibration, Analysis, and Communication of Radiocarbon Dates (With Special Reference to the Prehistory of the Aegean World)." Radiocarbon 54, 3-4 (2012): 42334. doi:10.1017/S0033822200047184.

Here's another quote from Bietak. Tell me that this is cherry-picking:

"It is a great illusion to believe that sciences are more reliable, at least just now, in obtaining absolute dates. Manning, who is undoubtedly very knowledgeable in this field, deals extensively with the problems of radiocarbon chronology, although not with all the problems. It is astonishing that he has so much confidence in proposing a 14C chronology for the Aegean, when the data available are so limited, and limited even more by the subjective selection process of the author's."

Bietak, Manfred. "Review of a Test of Time by Manning, W;." BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXI, 1-2 (2004): 199222.

And yet another from Bietak and Hoflmayer:

"In summation, the agreement between 14C and historical chronology in the 14th century and the sharp rise of an offset a century earlier of up to 100 to 150 years as well as in the preceding centuries only shows that the calibrated radiocarbon dates presented by Manning, Bronk Ramsey et al. cannot be considered as a series of chronometric precision . . . ."

Bietak, Manfred, and Felix Höflmayer. "Introduction: High and Low Chronology." In The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. III: Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 - 2nd EuroConference, Vienna 28th of May - 1st of June 2003. Edited by Manfred Bietak and Ernst Czerny, 1323. Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie / Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften 9. Wien: Verl. der Österr. Akad. der Wiss, 2007.

And yet another scholar recognizing the conflict between C14 and archaeological/historical dates:

"Still, C14 dates from this site [Tell el-Dab'a] indicate a date that is 120 years earlier (Kuschera et al. 2012), resulting in a severe discrepancy between the radiocarbon dates and the archaeological remains and their interpretation, a conundrum that has not yet been solved.
* * *
Scholars who adhere to radiocarbon dates and find them more reliable point to flaws in the archaeological-historical dating of the material from Tell ed-Daba [sic] (e.g., Höflmayer et al. 2016; Höflmayer and Cohen 2017, 34). Scholars who rely on the archaeological evidence have pointed out the numerous problems relating to the historical implications of the early dates and call for a more cautious use of radiocarbon dates. These are supported by further evidence from several sites in Egypt and the Levant (e.g., Beitak 2013; D. Ben-Tor 2018)."

Bechar, Shlomit, ed. Political Change and Material Culture in Middle to Late Bronze Age Canaan. History, Archaeology, and Culture of the Levant 11. University Park Pennsylvania: Eisenbrauns, 2022.

A quote from C14 scholars from the journal Radiocarbon:

"Although radiochemical and radiophysical dating methods are now highly developed and efficient, discrepancies between dates and apparently indisputable archaeological evidence regularly appear."

Johnson, R. A., J. J. Stipp, M. A. Tamers, Georges Bonani, Martin Suter, and Willy Wölfli. "Archaeologic Sherd Dating: Comparison of Thermoluminescence Dates with Radiocarbon Dates by Beta Counting and Accelerator Techniques." Radiocarbon 28, 2A (1986): 71925. doi:10.1017/S0033822200007943.

Rocag said:

---

None of those people are arguing that the science behind radiocarbon dating isn't trustworthy and that we should just completely ignore it. You want to toss the baby out with the bathwater which is ridiculous. Is there work to be done to better calibrate the models? Of course! That's literally what they're doing. They aren't just throwing up their hands and saying "This is useless!"

---

I never said that the scholars are saying "This is useless!". Don't put words in my mouth.

I did say that the majority of archaeologists who specialize in Bronze Age Middle East believe that it is "false and untrustworthy". That is correct; they do.

However, even though they don't accept the absolute dates after correction by dendrochronology, they will accept relative dates, which is a whole different kettle of fish. All that relative dates tell you is that sample X is either older or younger than sample Y, but not the absolute date of either. So they don't find it "useless", but they do find the dates to be untrustworthy. That's one reason why they are searching for other dating techniques, because C14 dating has been incontrovertibly shown to be flawed.

Again, they are wondering why C14 dates are unreliable. Again, articles and entire conferences have been held on that issue alone.

And if C14 dates are unreliable, why do we blindly accept other radioisotope dating that we cannot experimentally confirm? Isn't that completely contrary to science? Aren't the possible factors that corrupt C14 dates also potentially applicable to other radioisotope dating?

As an afterthought, another evidence of the unreliability of C14 dating is that at sites where c14 dating has occurred on multiple occasions, dates are obtained that are all over the map. Jericho is a prime example. As you probably know, the date of its final destruction is highly contentious, so samples from it have been C14 dated at least 3 or 4 times. The dates vary widely and are unable to prove that either side of the debate is right or wrong.

Most sites, however, have samples dated only once, but many people take that dating result as gospel. Why? The reliability of C14 dating, when put to the test, is invariably shown to be unreliable.

Jabin said:

---

Quote:

---

Well...except they are not really dubious. If the science behind them wasn't generally accurate, then our formulas for radioactive decay would not be accurate and we'd have likely created a horrible tragedy via our early testing of nuclear weapons.

---

What a pile of baloney and an intellectually lazy argument. The dating theories are dubious for lots of reasons that have nothing to do with current decay rates. For example, two unprovable assumptions of all dating methodologies based on radioactive decay are:

1) That the decay rates have remained constant across millions, even billions, of years; and
2) That the element the decay rate of which is being measured started off with 100% of it being the parent (is that the correct term?) isotope or element.

Neither of those assumptions have any bearing whatsoever on testing of nuclear weapons.

And we know that those assumptions are wrong with C14 dating, the only radioisotope dating mechanism we can actually test. C14 scholars recognize that its decay rates have varied over time and that the starting point for the C14/C12 ratios varied due to a variety of factors, such as proximity to upwelling of "old water" that's free of C14 in the easter Mediterranean or possibly proximity to sources of gas release, gas that's comprised primarily of C12, not C14.

Here's an example of a paper written to address those issues with regard to C14 dates:

Wiener, Malcolm H. "Problems in the Measurement, Calibration, Analysis, and Communication of Radiocarbon Dates (With Special Reference to the Prehistory of the Aegean World)." Radiocarbon 54, 3-4 (2012): 42334. doi:10.1017/S0033822200047184.

---

Well, you're certainly allowed your opinion and data...But my last points still stand. God absolutely could have made the earth 'aged' in 6 days. It changes nothing about His role, the Genesis narrative or our salvation.

Rocag said:

---

And the same people writing those articles and attending those conferences you say are proclaiming C14 dating to be untrustworthy are also using C14 dating in their research and discussing methods of ensuring it is reliable. Do you not see the conflict there? If it is so untrustworthy why are they still using it? Or maybe, just maybe, you are misstating their position.

---

Except the majority are not using it. The working archaeologists who rely on evidence like written records and archaeological dates do not use C14 dates. That's my whole point.

Sure, the working archaeologists would like some method to provide precise dates, which is why they're working with the C14 guys. But they're also working with scholars on other dating mechanisms for the same reasons.

Even the C14 guys, while still defending their discipline, readily acknowledge that there's at least a 50-200 year consistent offset between C14 and archaeological dates. That's indisputable and acknowledged by everyone in the field.

Why are you so afraid of the science? If the science doesn't work, it doesn't work. That's the nature of science. The C14 guys may yet figure out why it's not working and make corrections so that it does work, but they're not nearly there yet.

And rather than me misstating their position (a position readily acknowledged by everyone), do you think there's a chance that you don't have any idea what you're talking about?

Quote:

---

But my last points still stand. God absolutely could have made the earth 'aged' in 6 days. It changes nothing about His role, the Genesis narrative or our salvation.

---

You will not get any argument from me on that.