Alright, to give a preface of this whole shenanigans.
Carbon dating is the phenomenon of scientists measuring a radioisotope called Carbon 14 which has a relatively stable half life of a long as fuck time. They use this half life, a decay rate, to determine how much carbon has decayed. Which they can then use to determine how old something is.
Or so they say.
Truth is, you can’t reverse engineer an age from a decay rate.
And Here is my argument with a Chatbot about it. I think it’s rather juicy.
I’ve also argued a chatbot with Taxes and fiscal policy. The ending was similar if not the same. And I’ve made Chatbot retract some statements. But I’m not going to share those findings, because -reasons-.
You can skip to the Closing remarks, there’s no need to listen to some idiot out-logic Artificial intelligence when it’s hands are tied. It was the intellectual equivalent to leading a horse to water or arguing with a kid that was on a losing battle or premise. You know, like convincing some political indoctrinated voter that their party is just a white collar gang. This conversation was doomed to fail.
If you don’t like hearing AI repeat itself or back itself into a corner, I suggest you skip to the ending. This dialogue sounds a bit more like abuse with how simplistic and precise my use of language is.
But, uh, here’s the chat log;
AI explains Carbon Dating and that it is not a scam.
AI explains we use references for calculating and approximating atmospheric Carbon 14 levels. Ice cores and tree samples for help in determining atmosphere content.
AI admits that the references, such as ice cores, has their carbon decay. So we’re using decaying carbon to compare with decaying carbon. Real smart we humans are. . .
AI goes on to defend carbon 14 while also adding superfluous information about ice cores. It says that carbon 14 decay is SLOW in ice cores. So I ask the BEGGING question;
Turns out, the half life of Carbon 14 is the same. So the decay rate is the same. It’s a constant rate. So it doesn’t matter if it’s in coprolite or ice, it decays the same.
AI goes down a losing battle.
AI argues against the burn rate of candles and carbon dating. AI rightly admits that the burn rate of a candle is not a reliable way to determine the age of the candle or the length. But wrongly complexifies it because of ‘external factors’.
So far, we’ve proven that there are not a number of techniques to account for initial carbon 14 concentration. Meaning that the AI is indeed lying. Also, the oldest Dendrochronology findings is no older than 10,000 years old. So that wouldn’t at all help.
Plus Dendrochronology Carbon 14 also decays with the other Carbon 14. So it’s still measuring a decay rate with a decay rate. It’s bonkers.
And then we get into a circular argument of trying to defend the science of something I don’t really care about.
this was the gist of the whole conversation, and this was actually the first response to this question;
As it turns out, there is no scientific way to reason an initial atmospheric concentration of Carbon 14. We only have decay rates. Measuring decay rates as a reference to measure other decay rates doesn’t tell us about the initial atmospheric concentration of Carbon 14.
You cannot determine initial conditions with only a decay rate. It’s like unscientific as fuck.
With only decay rates, you cannot determine initial conditions. And the AI is smart enough to know that, they just won’t admit it.
That’s all, fossils and carbon dating is a scam. Enjoy,
*Not Valid Financial, Legal, Life, or Any Advice
In most science or engineering, you have to assume initial conditions.
I get that, they are sort of a requirement in a world with limitless variables.
So you have to define your left and right limits, or else you’ll get shit numbers with no meaning.
But also, any good scientist knows that their results are predicated on their initial assumptions and conditions.
Meaning if their initial premise, or a priori assumption is wrong, then their conclusions are wrong.
So, unless we know for sure the real carbon 14 values of the past, then we’re probably guessing wildly inaccurately.
Cause you can’t measure how long a candle is, by only knowing how fast it burns. You need more data.