Users Online Now:
1,291
(
Who's On?
)
Visitors Today:
20,823
Pageviews Today:
33,214
Threads Today:
14
Posts Today:
206
12:21 AM
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:MaybeTrollingU:MV8zODU2NzMwXzY5NDE3NjI2XzIyMkNERTk5] Carbon dating is ONE method of dating fossils, and yes, its not accurate for longer periods. But there are many other methods: Radiocarbon dating - for dating organic materials (Maximum 50,000 to 60,000 years old) Dendrochronology - for dating trees, and objects made from wood, but also very important for calibrating radiocarbon dates Thermoluminescence dating - for dating inorganic material including ceramics Optically or optical dating for archaeological applications Potassium–argon dating - for dating fossilized hominid remains Argon–argon dating - for dating fossilized hominid remains Archaeomagnetic dating - Clay lined fire hearths take on a magnetic moment pointing to the North Pole each time they are fired and then cool. The position of the North Pole for the last time the fire hearth was used can be determined and compared to charts of known locations and dates. Lead Corrosion Dating.[2] Amino acid dating[3][4][5][6] Obsidian hydration dating - a geochemical method of determining age in either absolute or relative terms of an artifact made of obsidian Rehydroxylation dating - for dating ceramic materials[7] [/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 >>