Users Online Now:
2,214
(
Who's On?
)
Visitors Today:
850,493
Pageviews Today:
1,658,299
Threads Today:
695
Posts Today:
13,881
06:25 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:Anonymous Coward 74902645:MV8zODU2NzMwXzY5NDE5MTQ3X0U2RTEyODNG] [quote:Ostria1:MV8zODU2NzMwXzY5NDE1NTQxXzQyNUQ5QTZF] [quote:Anonymous Coward 76693275:MV8zODU2NzMwXzY5NDE1MjY3XzlDNDc0QjVD] C14 dates can be fairly accurate within about 4500 years. Beyond that it has always been known C14 testing is useless. You can get back to about 4500 years ago if calibrated correctly. [/quote] 45,000 to 50,000 [/quote] That's what we were taught, but the reality is different. The reality is that the spreads we get on th dates we get for anything older than about 6,000 years BP are so wide that they are useless. For example, we tested charcoal from a firepit at a Clovis site dating to about 12,000 years ago. 6 test were performed on charcoal from different areas of the pit. The date range was from 9,000 to 40,000 years BP! With a midpoint of about 25,000 BP, and the Clovis culture thought to have appeared about 13,000 years ago, only the lowest date is considered usable, but goes against standard practice, which is to take the average. Because of this we had to disregard the whole sequence. We were disappointed, to say the least! [/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 >>