500,000 year old spear tip

You can not carbon date steel or rock.
You can only carbon date dna or flesh or plants something that was alive.
You can only carbon date tissue.

Nowhere does it say that they "carbon dated" the rock.
The rock itself is undoubtedly billions of years old, however,
there are multiple ways to guess the "age" of tools.
and they likely could "carbon date" bone fragments in the strata above it.

Please read before making grade-school comments.

Last Edited by MuzzleBreak on 11/16/2012 08:06 AM

Besides there are other isotopic ratios that are used for radiological dating.

Key word GUESS...
And title of your post OP should mention "guessing" game in efforts create hype on 200 year old fabricated rock.

Yes. Carbon dating is useless beyond 100,000 years ago.

Sure there is........
As long as results fit your "agenda".....
"Calibration" and disregarding "Out of Place Fossils"
Numerous fossils have been found in strata inconsistent with the evolutionary model of Earth's history.[6] These out of place fossils would seem to pose a problem for radiometric dating methods which are still calibrated based on the position of fossils (relative dates) in the geologic column. However, these fossils are not problematic if one simply disregards their existence.
If the date generated by isotope dating analysis agrees with the conventional interpretation of the geological column, paleontologists will accept it as valid. A date that disagrees with that interpretation is dismissed as an anomaly. This is not an example of malfeasance, but rather the result of assuming that the theory of evolution has been proved reliable, and therefore these seeming anomalies are due to contamination or other causes of analytical error. These out of place fossils or rocks are not considered a reason to question the theory. This makes independent testing of these dating methods impossible, since published discrepant dates are rare.[7]

Certainly all stone-age archeology involves guess-work. When it's published by more than one professor from more than one large university, we can usually say their guesses are gonna be better than the guy on the street.

The Paleolithic, or Old-Stone-Age extends from the earliest known use of stone tools, probably by Hominins such as Australopithecines, 2.6 million years ago, to the end of the Pleistocene around 10,000 BP--at the end of the last ice age. The Meso-lithic and Neolithic ages showed gradual changes in use of stone tools.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]

Last Edited by MuzzleBreak on 11/16/2012 08:22 AM

But not for rocks or steel or iron.

It is not a guess from something like clothing or dna or tissue.
Something that existed, unlike a rock or a stone they have existed since the birth of the planet.

Never heard that before... so all this time they have been telling us lies.. they've claimed for years thats how they date rocks..

Have just as many right here in america...
Looks like from the 'stone people'... not the homos...:)

Actually yes you can, when a rock is brought to the surface from beneath the soil, it is exposed to radiation in the form of cosmic-rays. Look up chlorine-36, this isotope is related to cosmic-ray spallation, and can be used to determine the time period when a rock was exposed to the surface, or chipped away at, from 60k years to more then 1 Million years old.

I work in a lab doing this kind of work, radio-dating, and we generate data that does not agree with the standard history of things routinely, and this data is always disregarded, but that's just they way it is, and it is what it is.

Carbon-14 dating is used for organic material. Often times the media reports any-kind of radiological dating as 'carbon dating'

There are many isotopes used for dating purposes, some with very long half-lives. For example the lead and uranium ratio is used to date the age of the earth. U-238, has a ~4.5 billion year half-life, now the material will be gone after 8-10 half-lives so we have plenty of margin to date the earth in the range of 4-5 Billion years.

Sorry but nuclear physics is hard, and they really dumb it down to nothing when its reported on, or talked about in the media.

Heidelbergensis skull.
]
[link to www.athenapub.com]
The Acheul hand-axes are interesting.

...pssssssst,the more iodine in the soil from the plants that formerly grew there,the wayyyyy older anything will date...think about that ,and why they depleted the soil of iodine with pesticides and man made fertilizers during the early 20th century...anything found before the iodine was depleted would show a false ancient date...then they would just use the dates of things found after the iodine soil depletion to say those found before was ancient...the lies are wayyyyyyy bigger than you think...

Well, I can't follow your thinking on that one.

But our prime minister tells us Earth is only 6000 years old... how can this be?

...iodine prevents radiation in our bodies,it does the same thing in the soil...carbon 14 measures the radiation coming from an object...radiations doesn't store well in the objects,the more iodine in the object...the less radiation, the older the object appears.....the "god" diet and potassium iodide will clean your calcified brain and body out and you will receive the positive frequencies better...the keys out of the illusion are in my 777 thread...

Last Edited by T Ceti H.C. Radnarg on 11/16/2012 02:24 PM

If so, he's right. The arrow would have erosion in such a dating at given erosion rates. Isotopes used in radiocarbon dating are subject to weather like an hourglass of the porous rock material. There were no homins other than man the rest were apes and did not use tools.

Extinct ape species missing its lower jaw. It was killed off in the global flood just 4500 years ago and fossilized in sediment layers all connected by polystrate fossils.

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

All guess work and "because i said so" from dogmatic evotards with a political agenda, not interested in actual science.

Radiometric dating failures

[link to creation.com]

Spear tip is prolly jus an injun tribe

Other methods of dating. I've posted three videos by a qualified geologist who has spent her career working in the petroleum and mining industries. There are many methods of dating, only the creatards use one and always in an attempt detrimental to knowledge not it's advancement.

Just an extinct ape

[link to creation.com]

Certainly did not live 2.6 million years ago, just because wiki "said so". At given erosion rates it along with the entire continent would be washed away.

Thanks for posting it. As someone interested in preparedness and bushcraft, it's enlightening to see that our ancestors produced stone implements far earlier than previously imagined. Scientists will debate this for a long time, as they go through the peer-review challenge.

I don't get the whole need to turn this into a creationist thread? What's up with that?

Many stone tools no doubt are covered up by sediment or in collapsed caves. It's always wonderful to find even a simple arrowhead and imagine someone in time making it and hunting with it, and perhaps fighting an enemy.

You can't possibly think planet Earth is only 6000 years old?

If you are arguing about something 500,000 yrs old I'll put up this excerpt from a PDF freely available online. They are discussing the beginnings of tool use 2.5 million years ago.

As more and more is found out about the origins of humanity stop trying to smother the argument with your flood myths and the God that wasn't there.

The results of the intensive archaeological survey,
and systematic excavations between 1992–1994
have firmly established the significance of Gona
for understanding the timing and context of the
beginning of early stone technology (Semaw et al.,
1997). The surface and excavated artefacts within the
deposits exposed east of the Kada Gona below the
level of a tuff named AST-2·75 are now firmly dated
close to 2·6 million years ago (Ma) by a combination of
Single Crystal Laser Fusion (SCLF) 40Ar/39Ar dating
and magnetostratigraphy. These are currently the
oldest known Late Pliocene stone artefacts, and by
definition they are representatives of the earliest
archaeology.
The two East Gona localities of EG10 and EG12
yielded close to 3000 surface and excavated artefacts
providing the first large data set for analysing the
composition and characteristics of the earliest stone
assemblages, and for understanding the knapping skills
of Late Pliocene hominids. Recent field research from
the nearby contemporary deposits at Bouri in the
Middle Awash has brought insights to the function of
these artefacts by yielding evidence of bones with
stone-tool cut-marks and hammerstone fractures dated
to 2·5 Ma (de Heinzelin et al., 1999). It was argued for
a long time that the appearance of flaked stones in the
archaeological record signalled the beginning of a
novel adaptation by Late Pliocene hominids with the
incorporation of substantial meat in their diet (Harris,
1983; Pickford, 1990; Vrba, 1990). Thus, the two
contemporary sites of Gona and Bouri are now shedding
light on this issue by yielding complementary
evidence, the former with abundant stone artefacts and
the latter with evidence of use of such artefacts in
butchery activities. An important addition from Bouri
is also the discovery of Australopithecus garhi, the new
hominid argued to be the species responsible for
making the earliest stone tools (Asfaw et al., 1999).

[link to www.indiana.edu]

Last Edited by 7even on 11/16/2012 03:06 PM