Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 2,423 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 380,247
Pageviews Today: 1,042,541Threads Today: 541Posts Today: 9,782
02:21 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

CARBON DATING, the gold standard in archeological dating, IS FOUND TO BE INACCURATE. Timescale of Human Evolution/History must be revised

 
Layers of Reality
Offer Upgrade

User ID: 75758325
United States
06/20/2018 08:56 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
CARBON DATING, the gold standard in archeological dating, IS FOUND TO BE INACCURATE. Timescale of Human Evolution/History must be revised
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.

Last Edited by Layers of Reality on 06/20/2018 08:58 AM
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 76670545
United States
06/20/2018 09:04 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: CARBON DATING, the gold standard in archeological dating, IS FOUND TO BE INACCURATE. Timescale of Human Evolution/History must be revised
It takes middle school level logic to realize carbon dating is bs
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 75758325
United States
06/20/2018 09:06 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: CARBON DATING, the gold standard in archeological dating, IS FOUND TO BE INACCURATE. Timescale of Human Evolution/History must be revised
It takes middle school level logic to realize carbon dating is bs
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76670545


But it takes a LOT of pull to publish any story that goes against mainstream logic.

While the basis of carbon dating is actually pretty legit, it's based on the assumption that the ratio of radioactive & nonradioactive carbons in the atmosphere always remained constant over time. Since this ratio is definitely not constant, especially changing quite a bit around 30,000 yeas ago, revisions in carbon dating methods are a must. I'd love to hear a middle school kid explain it!!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 76693275
United States
06/20/2018 09:10 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: CARBON DATING, the gold standard in archeological dating, IS FOUND TO BE INACCURATE. Timescale of Human Evolution/History must be revised
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.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 75758325
United States
06/20/2018 09:16 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: CARBON DATING, the gold standard in archeological dating, IS FOUND TO BE INACCURATE. Timescale of Human Evolution/History must be revised
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.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76693275


This has been known for DECADES, but we're still getting told of archeological findings from '2 million years ago'

I am certainly curious on dates involving Human evolution. 200,000 in Africa, or 400,000 years ago?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 76694505
United States
06/20/2018 09:20 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: CARBON DATING, the gold standard in archeological dating, IS FOUND TO BE INACCURATE. Timescale of Human Evolution/History must be revised
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.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76693275


This has been known for DECADES, but we're still getting told of archeological findings from '2 million years ago'

I am certainly curious on dates involving Human evolution. 200,000 in Africa, or 400,000 years ago?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 75758325


Yep. Those articles are always hilarious. They just claim absurd shit like that all the time and everyone buys it!ohno
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 71023486
United States
06/20/2018 09:21 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: CARBON DATING, the gold standard in archeological dating, IS FOUND TO BE INACCURATE. Timescale of Human Evolution/History must be revised
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.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76693275


This has been known for DECADES, but we're still getting told of archeological findings from '2 million years ago'

I am certainly curious on dates involving Human evolution. 200,000 in Africa, or 400,000 years ago?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 75758325


Yep. Those articles are always hilarious. They just claim absurd shit like that all the time and everyone buys it!ohno
 Quoting: •Ice Cream•


Yep lol everyone is just like 'wow that's a long time ago. Good thing this dating technique is accurate'
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 75758325
United States
06/20/2018 09:27 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: CARBON DATING, the gold standard in archeological dating, IS FOUND TO BE INACCURATE. Timescale of Human Evolution/History must be revised
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.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76693275


This has been known for DECADES, but we're still getting told of archeological findings from '2 million years ago'

I am certainly curious on dates involving Human evolution. 200,000 in Africa, or 400,000 years ago?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 75758325


Yep. Those articles are always hilarious. They just claim absurd shit like that all the time and everyone buys it!ohno
 Quoting: •Ice Cream•


Yep lol everyone is just like 'wow that's a long time ago. Good thing this dating technique is accurate'
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 71023486


cruise
Kakarot

User ID: 76686849
Australia
06/20/2018 09:27 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: CARBON DATING, the gold standard in archeological dating, IS FOUND TO BE INACCURATE. Timescale of Human Evolution/History must be revised
carbon dating is only used for dating organic matter. it is only used for things younger than 50,000-70,000 years old. They do not use carbon dating on anything older than that because they know it does not work on things older than that.

Last Edited by Kakarot on 06/20/2018 09:29 AM
Kakarot
Ostria1

User ID: 76679609
Greece
06/20/2018 09:28 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: CARBON DATING, the gold standard in archeological dating, IS FOUND TO BE INACCURATE. Timescale of Human Evolution/History must be revised
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.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76693275


45,000 to 50,000
Ostria
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 74667490
United States
06/20/2018 09:30 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: CARBON DATING, the gold standard in archeological dating, IS FOUND TO BE INACCURATE. Timescale of Human Evolution/History must be revised
You people are stupid. You don't use carbon dating for older timelines, you use other elements.

If any of you went to middle school science class you would know this.
Regal Beast

User ID: 75610162
United States
06/20/2018 09:36 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: CARBON DATING, the gold standard in archeological dating, IS FOUND TO BE INACCURATE. Timescale of Human Evolution/History must be revised
Keep in mind carbon dating is only useful for more recent dates.

Older dates use the half-life of other minerals like Zircon.

Edit: I was composing and research when the other guy posted the same thing.

Last Edited by RegalBeast on 06/20/2018 09:38 AM
Ostria1

User ID: 76679609
Greece
06/20/2018 09:38 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: CARBON DATING, the gold standard in archeological dating, IS FOUND TO BE INACCURATE. Timescale of Human Evolution/History must be revised
You people are stupid. You don't use carbon dating for older timelines, you use other elements.

If any of you went to middle school science class you would know this.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74667490


yes there are different methods, eg with potassium-40 isotope they can make long meassurements
Ostria
Layers of Reality  (OP)

User ID: 75758325
United States
06/20/2018 09:39 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: CARBON DATING, the gold standard in archeological dating, IS FOUND TO BE INACCURATE. Timescale of Human Evolution/History must be revised
carbon dating is only used for dating organic matter. it is only used for things younger than 50,000-70,000 years old. They do not use carbon dating on anything older than that because they know it does not work on things older than that.
 Quoting: Kakarot


False!

[link to www.thedailybeast.com (secure)]

They have not stopped measuring dates using radioactive carbon at all.
Layers of Reality  (OP)

User ID: 75758325
United States
06/20/2018 09:40 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: CARBON DATING, the gold standard in archeological dating, IS FOUND TO BE INACCURATE. Timescale of Human Evolution/History must be revised
You people are stupid. You don't use carbon dating for older timelines, you use other elements.

If any of you went to middle school science class you would know this.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74667490


Can you so kindly post links to a middle-school textbook with your claims non-ambiguously stated within it? Just curious.


And to clarify you're saying a few people on the thread are stupid, all the people in the thread are stupid, or the people posting educational articles about how Human history could be revised as a result of having to re-analyze the current model are stupid? Or were you trying to say the people and scientists who keep claiming to use carbon dating to identify timelines are stupid?

If I were to be honest I'd say you seem so upset over something you don't seem to actually understand.

Last Edited by Layers of Reality on 06/20/2018 09:42 AM
Regal Beast

User ID: 75610162
United States
06/20/2018 09:43 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: CARBON DATING, the gold standard in archeological dating, IS FOUND TO BE INACCURATE. Timescale of Human Evolution/History must be revised
There are probably other factors affecting decay rates that we don't fully understand yet.

The geologic record still supports Evolution and the Tree of Life but it's possible the time scale may be more and more inaccurate the further back you go.
Kakarot

User ID: 76686849
Australia
06/20/2018 09:43 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: CARBON DATING, the gold standard in archeological dating, IS FOUND TO BE INACCURATE. Timescale of Human Evolution/History must be revised
carbon dating is only used for dating organic matter. it is only used for things younger than 50,000-70,000 years old. They do not use carbon dating on anything older than that because they know it does not work on things older than that.
 Quoting: Kakarot


False!

[link to www.thedailybeast.com (secure)]

They have not stopped measuring dates using radioactive carbon at all.
 Quoting: Layers of Reality


If you reject something so passionately you would think you would have time to actually research everything about it. They do not use carbon dating for anything older than 50,000-70,000 years. You seem to think carbon dating is the only method of dating things.
Kakarot
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 72341210
United States
06/20/2018 09:44 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: CARBON DATING, the gold standard in archeological dating, IS FOUND TO BE INACCURATE. Timescale of Human Evolution/History must be revised
Just today, they did a major study on mitochondrial DNA and found that apparently evolution is WRONG wah wah and mammals all evolved about the same time as humans. So they are not seperated over time but SPONTANEOUSLY arose.
Layers of Reality  (OP)

User ID: 75758325
United States
06/20/2018 09:44 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: CARBON DATING, the gold standard in archeological dating, IS FOUND TO BE INACCURATE. Timescale of Human Evolution/History must be revised
carbon dating is only used for dating organic matter. it is only used for things younger than 50,000-70,000 years old. They do not use carbon dating on anything older than that because they know it does not work on things older than that.
 Quoting: Kakarot


False!

[link to www.thedailybeast.com (secure)]

They have not stopped measuring dates using radioactive carbon at all.
 Quoting: Layers of Reality


If you reject something so passionately you would think you would have time to actually research everything about it. They do not use carbon dating for anything older than 50,000-70,000 years. You seem to think carbon dating is the only method of dating things.
 Quoting: Kakarot


This entire thread is about carbon dating and what scientists are saying about it.

I'm just an echo, bro.
Layers of Reality  (OP)

User ID: 75758325
United States
06/20/2018 09:45 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: CARBON DATING, the gold standard in archeological dating, IS FOUND TO BE INACCURATE. Timescale of Human Evolution/History must be revised
Just today, they did a major study on mitochondrial DNA and found that apparently evolution is WRONG wah wah and mammals all evolved about the same time as humans. So they are not seperated over time but SPONTANEOUSLY arose.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 72341210


like in the precamrbian explosion?
Ostria1

User ID: 76679609
Greece
06/20/2018 09:46 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: CARBON DATING, the gold standard in archeological dating, IS FOUND TO BE INACCURATE. Timescale of Human Evolution/History must be revised
carbon dating is only used for dating organic matter. it is only used for things younger than 50,000-70,000 years old. They do not use carbon dating on anything older than that because they know it does not work on things older than that.
 Quoting: Kakarot


False!

[link to www.thedailybeast.com (secure)]

They have not stopped measuring dates using radioactive carbon at all.
 Quoting: Layers of Reality


where does it say they used carbon dating?
Ostria
Ostria1

User ID: 76679609
Greece
06/20/2018 09:50 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: CARBON DATING, the gold standard in archeological dating, IS FOUND TO BE INACCURATE. Timescale of Human Evolution/History must be revised
btw this sounds interesting

What we have here, therefore, would be the earliest modern human found outside of Africa. But the phrase “modern human” can be misleading. When researchers use the phrase they mean that the jawbone belongs to a person whose features are more similar to ours than those of Neanderthals. It does not mean that we have discovered the proverbial Adam or anyone’s greatx-grandfather Joe. This particular outpost of Homo sapiens may have left Africa and died out. The only way to further test this would be to conduct DNA analysis, which is notoriously difficult to perform on fossils found in the Levant.

I wonder why is it so.
Ostria
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 72341210
United States
06/20/2018 09:51 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: CARBON DATING, the gold standard in archeological dating, IS FOUND TO BE INACCURATE. Timescale of Human Evolution/History must be revised
[link to phys.org (secure)]



It is textbook biology, for example, that species with large, far-flung populations—think ants, rats, humans—will become more genetically diverse over time.

But is that true?

"The answer is no," said Stoeckle, lead author of the study, published in the journal Human Evolution.

For the planet's 7.6 billion people, 500 million house sparrows, or 100,000 sandpipers, genetic diversity "is about the same," he told AFP.

The study's most startling result, perhaps, is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.

"This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could," Thaler told AFP.

That reaction is understandable: How does one explain the fact that 90 percent of animal life, genetically speaking, is roughly the same age?

Was there some catastrophic event 200,000 years ago that ne
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 72341210
United States
06/20/2018 09:53 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: CARBON DATING, the gold standard in archeological dating, IS FOUND TO BE INACCURATE. Timescale of Human Evolution/History must be revised
Spontaneous species development, 90% about the same age! That is not evolution.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 45317719
United Kingdom
06/20/2018 09:53 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: CARBON DATING, the gold standard in archeological dating, IS FOUND TO BE INACCURATE. Timescale of Human Evolution/History must be revised
carbon dating is only used for dating organic matter. it is only used for things younger than 50,000-70,000 years old. They do not use carbon dating on anything older than that because they know it does not work on things older than that.
 Quoting: Kakarot


So how do you know its under 50k years in the first place?
Layers of Reality  (OP)

User ID: 75758325
United States
06/20/2018 09:55 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: CARBON DATING, the gold standard in archeological dating, IS FOUND TO BE INACCURATE. Timescale of Human Evolution/History must be revised
carbon dating is only used for dating organic matter. it is only used for things younger than 50,000-70,000 years old. They do not use carbon dating on anything older than that because they know it does not work on things older than that.
 Quoting: Kakarot


False!

[link to www.thedailybeast.com (secure)]

They have not stopped measuring dates using radioactive carbon at all.
 Quoting: Layers of Reality


where does it say they used carbon dating?
 Quoting: Ostria1


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, 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. '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.
Layers of Reality  (OP)

User ID: 75758325
United States
06/20/2018 09:57 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: CARBON DATING, the gold standard in archeological dating, IS FOUND TO BE INACCURATE. Timescale of Human Evolution/History must be revised
btw this sounds interesting

What we have here, therefore, would be the earliest modern human found outside of Africa. But the phrase “modern human” can be misleading. When researchers use the phrase they mean that the jawbone belongs to a person whose features are more similar to ours than those of Neanderthals. It does not mean that we have discovered the proverbial Adam or anyone’s greatx-grandfather Joe. This particular outpost of Homo sapiens may have left Africa and died out. The only way to further test this would be to conduct DNA analysis, which is notoriously difficult to perform on fossils found in the Levant.

I wonder why is it so.
 Quoting: Ostria1


I enjoyed your response. Thank you!!
Kakarot

User ID: 76686849
Australia
06/20/2018 10:00 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: CARBON DATING, the gold standard in archeological dating, IS FOUND TO BE INACCURATE. Timescale of Human Evolution/History must be revised
You thought they only used carbon dating for everything 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."
Kakarot
Kakarot

User ID: 76686849
Australia
06/20/2018 10:02 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: CARBON DATING, the gold standard in archeological dating, IS FOUND TO BE INACCURATE. Timescale of Human Evolution/History must be revised
If earth is young, we would be able to get DNA from species thought to be older than 1,000,000 years old. But nope.
Kakarot
Ostria1

User ID: 76679609
Greece
06/20/2018 10:05 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: CARBON DATING, the gold standard in archeological dating, IS FOUND TO BE INACCURATE. Timescale of Human Evolution/History must be revised
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, 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. '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.
 Quoting: Layers of Reality


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
Ostria
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 57942285
Canada
06/20/2018 10:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: CARBON DATING, the gold standard in archeological dating, IS FOUND TO BE INACCURATE. Timescale of Human Evolution/History must be revised
Carbon dating may be inaccurate, but that does not validate any of the following.
Nibiru.
The bible and religious history.
Atlantis.
Flat earth bs.
Nothing will change that crap to be true. So before ya open up any can o worms, dont. Invalidating carbon dating does not make your false crap true.





GLP