by oompa 12 Replies latest jw friends
I'm sure the no way no flood crowd will appreciate this too. So many things just don't add up. And when is the last time FDS WT did a major study to check on accuracy of carbon dating anyway???...............................oompa
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071111/sc_nm/peru_archaeology_dc
Good find, and in regards to your question you might notice that the Watchtower has scrupulously avoided making any declarations like they used to about carbon dating.
The reason is that carbon dating isn't the sole tool that scientists use to calculate age. There's an alphabet soup of different radiometric isotope dating methods available plus fission-track dating, tree-ring chronology, mud varve layers, ice cores and speleothem (stalagmite, stalactite) cores.
When several of these methods all independently indicate a point in time, it's fair to say that it is accurate. Carbon dating just happens to be one of the more commonly used because it has been verified against tree-ring chronology up to 9,000 years old and found to be accurate up to its farthest range of 40,000 radiocarbon years. Older organic material than that does not have sufficient C14 so different methods are used.
If you want even more bible-challenging Meso-American archaeological discovery look up Cape Verde, Chile. That site is estimated to be around 15,000 years old and has preserved tent-houses covered in mammoth hide and a perfectly preserved footprint of a human child.
Adam and Eve whatnow?
Fingerling...why the topless babe avatar? The post just prior to this explains it a bit. There is no way the Jews could have crossed the ocean over six thousand years ago and set up an advanced culture, all since the flood....oompa....If you are your avatar...WELCOME!!!!
If you are your avatar...WELCOME!!!!
OMG oompa you're terrible! LOL
Cool post about the different isotope methods for dating.
It's Barney Muldoon aka Richard Head
When was the last time the Watchtower tried to debunk the Carbon dating method?
If someone has access to the watchtower CD-ROM, could you look up the last reference dealing with carbon dating and tell us when it was?
I think that the WT won't write anything about the c14 method now because it is so easy to find accurate and easily understandable information on radiocarbon dating and prove the WT wrong in 2 seconds flat.
The WT wrote the c14 stuff when many folks didn't know about it- now it seems to be much more common knowledge.
1988 insight book actually quotes from 1955!!! and 1976.....pathetic....last reference was 1990 Awake and there is a longer article in Feb of that years call What Happened to the Dinosaurs?
It is true that the radiocarbon clock has been employed, along with other modern methods, for dating the artifacts found. However, that this method is not completely accurate is evidenced in the following statement by G. Ernest Wright in TheBiblicalArchaeologist (1955, p. 46): "It may be noted that the new Carbon 14 method of dating ancient remains has not turned out to be as free from error as had been hoped. . . . Certain runs have produced obviously wrong results, probably for a number of reasons. At the moment, one can depend upon the results without question only when several runs have been made which give virtually identical results and when the date seemscorrectfromothermethodsofcomputation [italics ours]." More recently, TheNewEncyclopaediaBritannica (Macropaedia, 1976, Vol. 5, p. 508) stated: "Whatever the cause, . . . it is clear that carbon-14 dates lack the accuracy that traditional historians would like to have."—See CHRONOLOGY (Archaeological Dating).------Insight Book
***
g9012/22p.28WatchingtheWorld ***Watching
the WorldINACCURATE
DATINGFor decades, historians and paleontologists have often relied on radiocarbon dating to estimate the age of fossils. However, according to Time magazine, "those estimates, while valuable, are also known to be somewhat uncertain." The magazine added that "carbon 14 levels in the air—and thus the amount ingested by organisms—are known to vary over time, and that can affect the results of carbon dating." After comparing the results of a carbon-14 test with a uranium-thorium test, a group of geologists at the Lamont-Doherty Geological Laboratory in Palisades, New York, found that the "radiocarbon dates may be off by as much as 3,500 years—possibly enough to force a change in current thinking on such important questions as exactly when humans first reached the Americas."
No way to cross the ocean? When did the contenental plates start moving apart? Anyone know? Were there people on those plates pre-move?
