Users Online Now:
1,774
(
Who's On?
)
Visitors Today:
724,192
Pageviews Today:
1,232,687
Threads Today:
472
Posts Today:
8,489
01:50 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:MV8zODU2NzMwXzY5NDE2MzUwXzNBNzk0OEU1] [quote:Kakarot:MV8zODU2NzMwXzY5NDE1OTUyX0NCNTUwM0Yx] [b][i]You thought they only used carbon dating for everything[/i][/b] otherwise you wouldn't have added "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." [/quote] I said thats the only thing they use? Can you respond to this comment with my quoted message that says exactly what you said I said? You are literally adding 1 and 1 together and making 15 out of it lol. You're leaping to conclusions and using assumptions rather than unbiasedly looking at the information supplied and responding only to that. This just isnt' that big of a deal for you to be so concerned about, but if you want to show concern, try to be concerned about the information given....instead of being concerned about your personal assumptions about that data. [/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 >>