The Instigator
GoOrDin
Pro (for)
The Contender
PsychicPhysicist
Con (against)

Carbon Dating uses zero relative comparisons

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
GoOrDin has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/23/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 191 times Debate No: 94043
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

GoOrDin

Pro

Do tot he fact that Carbon dating methods use zero relative comparable evidence or math,

I move, to prove:

That Carbon dating and anyone who puts an amount of belief in it, to structure their belief structure ( their attitude towards discussions and thoughts/ideas ) is entirely Foolish and Unscientific.

Challenge me.
PsychicPhysicist

Con

Since it was not stated whether the first round was simply acceptance only or not, I will assume I am permitted to argue in round 1.

My argument will be broken into the following points:

1) The mathematics of radioactivity is well understood, is intuitive, and can be demonstrated scientifically.

2) Other methods of dating samples act as corroborating evidence for the validity of this.

3) That though the proposition reasoning is valid:
P1: Radiocarbon dating is unsubstantiated by evidence and mathematics.
C1: Therefore, anyone who believes it is true is acting foolishly.
That their premise, P1, is false, and that therefore their conclusion is invalid as they have committed a false premise fallacy.

Without further ado, I will commence to argue as outlined above:

The mathematics of radioactive decay is extremely well understood. This is demonstrated by the fact that we have equations which can predict, with incredible accuracy, both the radioactivity of a sample and the relative proportions of mother-daughter atoms in a sample, as functions of time. Specifically, these equations are as follows:

D(t) = D0 + N(t) (exp(kt)- 1)

N(t) = N0(exp(-kt ))

A(t) = A0(exp(-kt ))

t(0.5) = (1/k)ln(2)

(Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://www.google.co.uk...
https://en.wikipedia.org... )

Evidence of these equations" validity can be demonstrated using Polonium, which, as a much more radioactive element (half life 138 days) than isotopes of Carbon, is more readily studied in the lab.

(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org...)

From these equations, it can be deduced that:

dt = (-1/((1/t(1/2))ln(2))) ln(1-A0)

I recognise that this is a difficult equation to understand, but it demonstrates the age of a sample can be calculated if the half life of the material and its initial activity are known, both of which can be obtained from experiment using Geiger counters.

There is a huge diversity in the types of radioactive dating methods which may be used to find the age of a sample, all of which consistently give results which agree with carbon dating. These include:
Uranium-lead
Samarium-neodymium
Potassium-argon
Rubidium-strontium
Uranium-thorium
argon-argon (Ar-Ar)
iodine-xenon (I-Xe)
lanthanum-barium (La-Ba)
lead-lead (Pb-Pb)
lutetium-hafnium (Lu-Hf)
rhenium-osmium (Re-Os)
uranium-lead-helium (U-Pb-He)
uranium-uranium (U-U)
krypton-krypton (Kr-Kr)

Some methods of dating a sample which do not require an understanding of radioactivity include:
Dendrochronology (https://en.wikipedia.org...)
Chlorine-36
Fission track
Luminescence dating (https://en.wikipedia.org...)

All of these methods agree with the numbers given by radioactive dating and by each other. There is overwhelming amounts of corroborating evidence for the validity of carbon dating, as well as the above listed methods.

Though my opponent would be correct to argue that if there were no evidence to support the validity of carbon dating, individuals would be "foolish" and "unscientific" to assert it as evidence to support another point, the above argument demonstrates very conclusively that he is in fact mistaken in his premise- there is an abundance of evidence all of which points to carbon dating being a valid method for determining the age of something.

I would like to thank my opponent for proposing this debate, and you as the audience for reading my case.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by GoOrDin 7 months ago
GoOrDin
damn I was late. either way. I was going to continue this debate by adding, challenging you to : "Carbon Dating uses zero relative comparisons" during the last round.

I will substitute, " I am glad hat my opponent presented Carbon dating in it's abundance as his first round presentation;
as that is the very information I was referring to as being entirely redundant, irrelevant banter which when applied to a dating method is not scientific.

This will be good for my opponent; to hear how he presented Air for dinner to his audience."

as my argument. Seeing as. I argue that, none of the information provided is actually relevant information to discovering the date of the argued substance...

I am sorry I missed this. I think this is not my only debate I missed.
Posted by GoOrDin 7 months ago
GoOrDin
I am glad hat my opponent presented Carbon dating in it's abundance as his first round presentation;
as that is the very information I was referring to as being entirely redundant, irrelevant banter which when applied to a dating method is not scientific.

This will be good for my opponent; to hear how he presented Air for dinner to his audience.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.