Windevoid Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 (edited) Exactly as the title says. I mean, I asked 3 claims for the middle ages: 1. How can you date castles and city walls scientifically (some question carbon dating). 2. Same dating problem, but for manuscripts. 3. Do those manuscripts or era data have multiple sources? 4. Anatoly Fomenko can just put medieval cultures on top of each other. 5. Evidence of unique culture? 6. Do they have arrowheads, helmets, and swords from the era, dateable? Edited September 3, 2013 by Sayonara Updated to include question added by Windevoid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 I'd suggest letting the sleeping dog lie, and just asking those 5 questions as the scientific queries that they are. In terms of dating, carbon dating is only really good for dead organic stuff that once integrated atmospheric carbon. There are however other methods of radiometric dating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 (edited) You did ask question 1 specifically and received a specific answer, to which you did not respond. Why should you now expect responses to the others? Edit: In response to sayonara cheerful optimism here is my answer again. I don't know when masons started carving dates into their work, possibly in Roman times. But it was certainly well known practice by the middle ages. Edited September 3, 2013 by studiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Cheerful optimism, presumably? This thread has been merged with the replies to the thread that was created in the Support Forum. That thread has now been retired gracefully. Windevoid, please listen to the answers you are given, and be prepared to do some outside reading. The link I gave you is a very good jumping-off point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windevoid Posted September 4, 2013 Author Share Posted September 4, 2013 You did ask question 1 specifically and received a specific answer, to which you did not respond. Why should you now expect responses to the others? Edit: In response to sayonara cheerful optimism here is my answer again. I would have, but Swansont closed my thread. I'd suggest letting the sleeping dog lie, and just asking those 5 questions as the scientific queries that they are. In terms of dating, carbon dating is only really good for dead organic stuff that once integrated atmospheric carbon. There are however other methods of radiometric dating. That's the same carbon dating process that some people question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 That's the same carbon dating process that some people question. Radiometric dating is a general name for a whole bunch of techniques. Carbon dating is one such technique, and the question is usually "how can you use carbon dating to date ROCKS? Duh!" To which the answer is invariably "You can't. That's why we don't." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windevoid Posted September 4, 2013 Author Share Posted September 4, 2013 Radiometric dating is a general name for a whole bunch of techniques. Carbon dating is one such technique, and the question is usually "how can you use carbon dating to date ROCKS? Duh!" To which the answer is invariably "You can't. That's why we don't." It's the exact same process, just with different elements than carbon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 It's the exact same process, just with different elements than carbon. And there's a reason why the issue people have with carbon as a dating marker for organic material is not an issue with methods intended to date inorganic material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windevoid Posted September 4, 2013 Author Share Posted September 4, 2013 And there's a reason why the issue people have with carbon as a dating marker for organic material is not an issue with methods intended to date inorganic material. What about radioactive variability? It shouldn't always get the right answer anymore than being able to predict which side a coin will land on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 What about radioactive variability? It shouldn't always get the right answer anymore than being able to predict which side a coin will land on. Why's that then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 What about radioactive variability?It shouldn't always get the right answer anymore than being able to predict which side a coin will land on. Law of large numbers. I may not be able to predict an individual coin flip, but if you flip a million coins, the chance that you're going to deviate from the average far enough to even get a 40/60 split is so low that calling it indistinguishable from zero grossly overstates its size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 . That's the same carbon dating process that some people question. What those people have in common is a lack of understanding of radiometric dating. They say things like "What about radioactive variability? It shouldn't always get the right answer anymore than being able to predict which side a coin will land on." If they learned more they would realise that the objections don't ring true. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 I would have, but Swansont closed my thread. Was that your answer then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now