Dating processes why the big differences?

Crazyguy

I watched a documentary last night where they found old bones and spear heads in Mexico. This work was originally started in the 60s but they went back over the decades. The main researcher dated the items at about 20,000 years old. Carbon dating found them to be older 250,000. A microbe dater stated 80,000 and two different uranium decay processes where altogether different one of which is now thought to be the most acurate of all states these items to be roughly 400,000 old. The question is 5 different dating processes were used and all of them were different from one another, so what gives?

Viviane

Carbon dating is not ever used at 250K years (50000 years is about the maximum), uranium dating is used with 2 million year margin of error. For comparison, one is as accurate as a scalpel, the other as accurate as a chainsaw. Why would you ever compare the two?

Also, which documentary?

Coded Logic

What's the name of the "researcher"? What's the name of the documentary? The claims you are making sound wildly inaccurate. Please provide some more information so we can verify what you're claiming.

Kanon

I believe carbon dating is limited to at max the 50,000 year range. Though I have read that it could be even shorter 40,0000 - 20,000.

But 250k - 400k would be completely inaccurate

prologos

perhaps I watched that show, the dates were for different items, some organic, others stone, metal. in different layers. the ages were not related.

Crazyguy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koYWznEIV50

That's the link to the documentary, long. Its called Forbidden Archeology.

Any way my details may be a bit off but the questions mainly is, in the show its show these people using several different dating techniques and yet no two were even close to each other Why??? This lack of continuity blows up any credibility of the science. They used carbon dating, two different uranium dating technique's, ash, Microbial dating etc. All these guys tops in their fields according to the program yet all different results on the date of the find.

Viviane

Any way my details may be a bit off but the questions mainly is, in the show its show these people using several different dating techniques and yet no two were even close to each other Why???

Because these guys that wrote the book this video is based on are cranks that distort, cherry pick and use out of context "science" to somehow connect the history of humans with their Brahmic Veda religion. They don't want it to match.

RichardHaley

I have watch this video several times and find it very interesting. The problem with dating methods is the wide margin between minimum and maximum ages. The use of diatom dating to me seems to be the most sensible and gives a minimum date of 80k for this site. The date of 400k is a maximum date derived from the dating method that measures daughter properties of uranium decay involving hydrogen atoms.

It shouldn't surprise us that information and even facts can be suppressed by powerful institutions for their own agendas, protecting their "status quo" so to speak. After all, haven't most of us have experienced that to some degree in our own lives?

As far as the Brahmic Veda connection, at least it was no where mention in the film and I doubt that can be tied to any of the original archaeologist at the site as a motive for their work. One thing for sure is that this site has been shut down by powerful entities who are not concerned about the story these artifacts tell.

Even at original dates of 20k for the artifacts (60's scientific technology) flies in the face of mankind being only 6k old.

Simon

in the show its show these people using several different dating techniques and yet no two were even close to each other Why?

I believe different dating methods are more or less applicable to different types of object and for each, there are various environmental conditions that may affect the results. You can't just apply every method then quibble that the results don't perfectly align - some of the methods simply were't suitable and it's unfair to use and then negatively judge the method because it isn't meant to be used that way.

Why do we have different types of thermometers? Why can't I take a child's temperature with the same thing I can point at the side of my house to check for draughts? Because while they measure the same thing, they are meant for different situations and if used wrongly, don't give the correct results. It doesn't mean any of them is faulty just because they give different readings when not used appropriately.

Viviane

It shouldn't surprise us that information and even facts can be suppressed by powerful institutions for their own agendas, protecting their "status quo" so to speak.

Science is rewarded ONLY for changing the status quo. If you think scientists, in general, are interested in preserving the status quo, you've science exactly backwards.

As far as the Brahmic Veda connection, at least it was no where mention in the film and I doubt that can be tied to any of the original archaeologist at the site as a motive for their work.

The authors of the book and documentary are neither archeologists nor scientists of any kind. Amazing what five minutes on Google can show you.

Michael A. Cremo (born July 15, 1948), also known by his devotional name Drutakarmā dāsa, is an American freelance researcher who identifies himself as a Vedic creationist and an "alternative archeologist"[1][2][3] and argues that humans have lived on the earth for billions of years

Richard Leslie Thompson, also known as Sadaputa Dasa[4] (February 4, 1947 – September 18, 2008), was an American mathematician,[2][3] author and Gaudiya Vaishnava religious figure, known principally for his promotion of Vedic creationism [5] and as the co-author (with Michael Cremo) of Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race (1993), which has been widely criticised by the scientific community

One thing for sure is that this site has been shut down by powerful entities who are not concerned about the story these artifacts tell.

In what way is that "for sure"?

Dating processes why the big differences?

Share this