1. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52612
    20 Feb '12 13:41
    http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-02-archaeologists-jordan-earliest.html
  2. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12692
    20 Feb '12 14:10
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-02-archaeologists-jordan-earliest.html
    The article says, "Radiocarbon dating suggests that the hut is between 19,300 and 18,600 years old." It is known that radiocarbon dating can not be trusted
    as a true dating method.
  3. Joined
    16 Jan '07
    Moves
    93318
    20 Feb '12 14:54
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    The article says, "Radiocarbon dating suggests that the hut is between 19,300 and 18,600 years old." It is known that radiocarbon dating can not be trusted
    as a true dating method.
    its accurate up to around 60,000 years. mistakes are made sometimes my scientists when taking the readings and when cross contamination happens. there are other things that can effect readings, but scientists are a pretty brainy bunch and take these factors into account. religious website have stories of where c14 testing is wrong, but sometimes fingerprint taking can go wrong but its still a very accurate method.
  4. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52612
    20 Feb '12 15:501 edit
    qOriginally posted by RJHinds
    The article says, "Radiocarbon dating suggests that the hut is between 19,300 and 18,600 years old." It is known that radiocarbon dating can not be trusted
    as a true dating method.
    You should qualify that statement, "It is known" that radiocarbon dating cannot be trusted as a true dating method BY CREATIONISTS. Who have a vested interest in NEVER accepting ANY scientific evidence, no matter how clear, that Earth is way more than 10,000 years old.
  5. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12692
    20 Feb '12 17:59
    Originally posted by stellspalfie
    its accurate up to around 60,000 years. mistakes are made sometimes my scientists when taking the readings and when cross contamination happens. there are other things that can effect readings, but scientists are a pretty brainy bunch and take these factors into account. religious website have stories of where c14 testing is wrong, but sometimes fingerprint taking can go wrong but its still a very accurate method.
    When scientist have used a control sample that they know the age of
    they still get ages much too old with the radiocarbon method. There
    is no contamination there. When they date something and get dates
    outside of the dates they expect, then, and only then, will they claim
    something is wrong, like contamination.
  6. Joined
    04 May '11
    Moves
    13077
    20 Feb '12 18:11
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    When scientist have used a control sample that they know the age of
    they still get ages much too old with the radiocarbon method. There
    is no contamination there. When they date something and get dates
    outside of the dates they expect, then, and only then, will they claim
    something is wrong, like contamination.
    You really have no idea how science works, do you? Most scientists would love to discover something unexpected. It is only by discovering something like that that they can get famous, after all.
  7. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12692
    20 Feb '12 18:15
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    You should qualify that statement, "It is known" that radiocarbon dating cannot be trusted as a true dating method BY CREATIONISTS. Who have a vested interest in NEVER accepting ANY scientific evidence, no matter how clear, that Earth is way more than 10,000 years old.
    I have never seen any clear evidence that the Earth is older than 10,000
    years. Your teachers are getting paid to teach you what they have been
    taught in school regardless if it is the truth or not. Many of the science
    books are still full of out of date material. Many scientists today are
    coming to different conclusions than the Normal evolutionists crowd. I
    guess you will just have to wait until the truth comes out on this like it
    has on other things thought to be true science. I am sorry that you may
    not have the time to wait.
Back to Top