Users Online Now:
2,647
(
Who's On?
)
Visitors Today:
1,971,285
Pageviews Today:
2,734,093
Threads Today:
665
Posts Today:
12,882
08:52 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:Ostria1:MV8zODU2NzMwXzY5NDE2MDIwXzc3N0U2MDdC] [quote:Layers of Reality:MV8zODU2NzMwXzY5NDE1ODkzXzExMjUxNjVD] My apologies. Several dating techniques were used, and all came back with a date range between 200,000 and 400,000 years old. I misread a word as 'carbon' in the article so this wasn't the best of examples, [b]but it doesnt negate the fact scietnists are still going public about the inaccuracy of carbon dating, which is the entire reason this post exists.[/b] 'OP is wrong because the scientists are wrong' is about the vibe I'm getting from those choosing to refuse any form of acceptance or agreement on what was being conveyed. Even though the premise of this post is exactly in line with what you guys are saying. Lol. 'I dont like how you came to your conclusion so I'm just going to act like you're wrong' They used thermoluminescence (TL) and electron spin resonance (ESR) in addition to Uranium/Thorium dating. [/quote] Dont worry! Its an interesting question and i really dont know how accurate the measurements are, but i dont think that the error range can be that big to change the overall we know today. :hf: [/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 >>