Carbon dating gives you an approximate age under the assumption that the carbon you’re looking at followed the same dynamics at all time points preceding the present moment. It does not prove in any way that the assumption is true.
The assumption doesn’t lead to the potential for things that are 6000 years old being dated to millions/billions of years old though. The error margin is more in the range of 2 to 5%.
Tree ring dating doesn’t include that assumption. But also Potassium-argon or uranium lead dating require a different assumption of sameness across time, it would be highly unlikely for significantly different isotopes to experience similar issues of the same time periods.
If trees haven’t always started from 0 and grown a new ring each year (barring weird weather phenomena), then how can we use it for dating? The only way that it works is if we assume they do.
A different assumption of sameness is still an assumption of sameness. And the “highly unlikely” claim you’re making is also based on the same assumption, but applied to the universe as a whole. Why would you say that it’s unlikely unless you’ve observed that the laws of physics have always been consistent during your lifetime and extrapolated that into the past?
The point is to hopefully get people to put some more thought into the position they hold and what they argue against so they can make stronger arguments. Contrary to popular belief, religious folks do listen to logic (at least, in my experience). But those who argue with them don’t argue from a place of logic either, so obviously they’re not going to be receptive.
Carbon dating gives you an approximate age under the assumption that the carbon you’re looking at followed the same dynamics at all time points preceding the present moment. It does not prove in any way that the assumption is true.
The assumption doesn’t lead to the potential for things that are 6000 years old being dated to millions/billions of years old though. The error margin is more in the range of 2 to 5%.
The error rate is also based on that assumption. If the carbon suddenly popped into existence 6000 years ago, then that violates the assumption.
The error rate is based on correlation with results from other methods of dating that don’t have the same assumption.
What dating method doesn’t rely on the same assumption of sameness across time?
Tree ring dating doesn’t include that assumption. But also Potassium-argon or uranium lead dating require a different assumption of sameness across time, it would be highly unlikely for significantly different isotopes to experience similar issues of the same time periods.
If trees haven’t always started from 0 and grown a new ring each year (barring weird weather phenomena), then how can we use it for dating? The only way that it works is if we assume they do.
A different assumption of sameness is still an assumption of sameness. And the “highly unlikely” claim you’re making is also based on the same assumption, but applied to the universe as a whole. Why would you say that it’s unlikely unless you’ve observed that the laws of physics have always been consistent during your lifetime and extrapolated that into the past?
I mean we can literally see into the past and observe the laws of physics being consistent, not sure what your point is?
The point is to hopefully get people to put some more thought into the position they hold and what they argue against so they can make stronger arguments. Contrary to popular belief, religious folks do listen to logic (at least, in my experience). But those who argue with them don’t argue from a place of logic either, so obviously they’re not going to be receptive.