Users Online Now:
2,233
(
Who's On?
)
Visitors Today:
1,253,686
Pageviews Today:
2,093,470
Threads Today:
852
Posts Today:
14,946
07:58 PM
Directory
Adv. Search
Topics
Forum
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
REPLY TO THREAD
Subject
CARBON DATING, the gold standard in archeological dating, IS FOUND TO BE INACCURATE. Timescale of Human Evolution/History must be revised
User Name
Font color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Indigo
Violet
Black
Font:
Default
Verdana
Tahoma
Ms Sans Serif
In accordance with industry accepted best practices we ask that users limit their copy / paste of copyrighted material to the relevant portions of the article you wish to discuss and no more than 50% of the source material, provide a link back to the original article and provide your original comments / criticism in your post with the article.
[quote:Layers of Reality:MV8zODU2NzMwXzY5NDE1Njg1X0VCQzNBRjIy] [quote:Anonymous Coward 74667490:MV8zODU2NzMwXzY5NDE1NTU4XzIyOUExMzhC] You people are stupid. You don't use carbon dating for older timelines, you use other elements. If any of you went to middle school science class you would know this. [/quote] Can you so kindly post links to a middle-school textbook with your claims non-ambiguously stated within it? Just curious. And to clarify you're saying a few people on the thread are stupid, all the people in the thread are stupid, or the people posting educational articles about how Human history could be revised as a result of having to re-analyze the current model are stupid? Or were you trying to say the people and scientists who keep claiming to use carbon dating to identify timelines are stupid? If I were to be honest I'd say you seem so upset over something you don't seem to actually understand. [/quote]
Original Message
Why did the scientific community decided to publish a story about how their very own gold standard is flawed by design? The assumptions/design flaws in the carbon dating formula
have been known for decades
, but it hasn't stopped archeology from taking carbon data and proclaiming its exactitude.
I found an article from 1990 stating they found carbon dating was inaccurate, here
[
link to www.nytimes.com (secure)
]
And here we see some disbelief that carbon dating could be accurate when measuring dates OVER 30,000 years as a result of
the ratio of atmospheric radioactive carbon to nonradioactive carbon has not remaining consistent over time
.
[
link to www.scmp.com
]
Carbon Dating gets a reset
[
link to www.scientificamerican.com (secure)
]
Not only does this put a huge kink in our understanding of climate history, but threatens our understanding of the timescale of Human evolution through the discovery of tools, ancient campsites & the like.
Pictures (click to insert)
General
Politics
Bananas
People
Potentially Offensive
Emotions
Big Round Smilies
Aliens and Space
Friendship & Love
Textual
Doom
Misc Small Smilies
Religion
Love
Random
View All Categories
|
Next Page >>