Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Carbon dating: used to date plants, animals, and humans...is only able to measure subjects 5700 yrs or younger +or -, so how can you say that humans were here hundreds of thousands of yrs. ago?
You've got it wrong. The halflife of carbon 14 is about 5713 years so apparently that's where you came up with that number. You can continue to calulate age by using that as a reference. Accelerator techniques can calculate ages to about 100,000 years and there are other means of calculating age besides carbon 14.
You've got it wrong. The halflife of carbon 14 is about 5713 years so apparently that's where you came up with that number. You can continue to calulate age by using that as a reference. Accelerator techniques can calculate ages to about 100,000 years and there are other means of calculating age besides carbon 14.
I doubt you will get much of a response...Freedom just realized you know your stuff
You've got it wrong. The halflife of carbon 14 is about 5713 years so apparently that's where you came up with that number. You can continue to calulate age by using that as a reference. Accelerator techniques can calculate ages to about 100,000 years and there are other means of calculating age besides carbon 14.
I do have it wrong, 1/2 life 5700. My bad.....
Don't those accelerator techniques have accuracy issues?
Th above link describes how carbon dating works, and from a cursory look it appears as if carbon dating is good for dating life to 40,000 yrs back or less....
For the "oldest human remains" found, there is this link: Oldest Human Fossils Identified
It appears for that they used a different dating system, and dated the ash the bodies were buried in...
The way I'm understanding it, The half life of carbon 14 is used in determining age, they compare the c14 levels in the specimen, to the stable c12 amounts. everytime the level of the c14 has deteriorated by half, (started out the same amount for both) it is then that 5700 yrs have passed.
So, say the amount of c12 was 12,000,000, and the level of c14 was 3,000,000 you could determine that the length of time since death of the object is 11,400-11,460 years old. (the level dropped by half twice)
Let me know if any of this is incorrect, I went on a little learning curve after reading the posts...
Th above link describes how carbon dating works, and from a cursory look it appears as if carbon dating is good for dating life to 40,000 yrs back or less....
For the "oldest human remains" found, there is this link: Oldest Human Fossils Identified
It appears for that they used a different dating system, and dated the ash the bodies were buried in...
The way I'm understanding it, The half life of carbon 14 is used in determining age, they compare the c14 levels in the specimen, to the stable c12 amounts. everytime the level of the c14 has deteriorated by half, (started out the same amount for both) it is then that 5700 yrs have passed.
So, say the amount of c12 was 12,000,000, and the level of c14 was 3,000,000 you could determine that the length of time since death of the object is 11,400-11,460 years old. (the level dropped by half twice)
Let me know if any of this is incorrect, I went on a little learning curve after reading the posts...
It appears that some scientists have accepted C14 dating to fit a certain bias, and not all scientists think it is an accurate dating method.
Perhaps the best description of the problem in attempting to use the Carbon-14 dating method is to be found in the words of Dr. Robert Lee. In 1981, he wrote an article for the Anthropological Journal of Canada, in which stated:
"The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a fix-it-as-we-go approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half has come to be accepted…. No matter how useful it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually the selected dates.”
People sometimes try to discredit the Holy Bible by picking the story of Cain's wife as an example of a writing flaw. Where did she come from? 1 Corinthians 15:45 says "And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being..." However, in 1938Pierre Teihard de Chardan wrote (translated) The Phenomenon of Man suggesting that human life may have been created at several places simultaneously, which would explain different races, and where Cain's wife came from. Adam was the first, but God also "created" humans all over the world, and they procreated as they met each other later, which would avoid inbreeding. I find this very profound. Any thoughts?
Adam was the one and only first man according to the bible. Eve was the first and only woman, the mother of all humans, according to the bible. Either you accept that or not. Just because our modern human minds are so clouded by our sinful nature does not mean it was unconscionable in the beginning that Cain's wife was his sister or niece.
We are all one blood (Acts 17:26), no matter what our skin color or other cosmetic differences concerning our appearance. It's my belief all humans are decendants from Adam and Eve, no matter race or color or ethnicity. Those are all man-made classifications to identify that which was different from that which was known. It's my opiniion we should just leave the race question out of it. Race matters not to God (Galatians 3:28). We're all one race -- the human race.
posted by freedom:
Perhaps the best description of the problem in attempting to use the Carbon-14 dating method is to be found in the words of Dr. Robert Lee. In 1981, he wrote an article for the Anthropological Journal of Canada, in which stated:
"The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a fix-it-as-we-go approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half has come to be accepted…. No matter how useful it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually the selected dates.”
posted by freedom:
Perhaps the best description of the problem in attempting to use the Carbon-14 dating method is to be found in the words of Dr. Robert Lee. In 1981, he wrote an article for the Anthropological Journal of Canada, in which stated:
"The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a fix-it-as-we-go approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half has come to be accepted…. No matter how useful it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually the selected dates.”
Have things changed since that time? 1981?
Or is that still the general concensus?
I'll have to do more research to know what the current issues are. One thing for sure, man makes tons of errors even when we think its right. Especially when there is a bias, either physical or spiritual.
This was informative
http://http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mcarbon14.html (broken link)
godspeed,
freedom
Last edited by freedom; 02-24-2008 at 03:34 PM..
Reason: add site address
I'll have to do more research to know what the current issues are. One thing for sure, man makes tons of errors even when we think its right. Especially when there is a bias, either physical or spiritual.
godspeed,
freedom
agreed, let me know what you find if you look further into it.
Thanks!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
