The Old Age

by Caupon 81 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Caupon

  So now that most of us have come to a semi truthful understanding that the witnesses are wrong about evolutionist, there is a certain question that I have always had. Now if you were to ask any JW, they'd recite a complete fallacy from scientist regarding this. But what is you guys input of this. How exactly do scientist know the age of the so called "ancient" bones, skulls, and fragments? Is there any proof of them assuming that the Homo sapiens species is millenniums old? It just does not seem correct to say that something is millions of years old just based on one part. For all we know, it could be just six years old and made to look ancient. I feel like if you are going to believe what they say about past times then you might as well believe what Jehovah's witnesses say.
• 

  Simon

  They date the bones (radio carbon decay) and the artifacts they have with them (plus anything that dates the surroundings).

  http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/154588/is-it-a-problem-with-radiometric-dating-that-carbon-14-is-found-in-materials-dat
  
• 

  John Aquila

  For all we know, it could be just six years old and made to look ancient.

  LOL

  Hey these days you can believe anything you want.

  
• 

  Caupon

  Thanks you Simon, but is it really based on the truth or an assumption. Estimating things are at least 65 billion years old seems to be just them throwing numbers around.
• 

  Witness My Fury

  65 billion? wtf are you on about?
• 

  cofty

  Caupon - The answers to all your questions is only a few clicks away. Or you could go to Amazon and buy a book on the topic or even borrow one from your local library. How much effort have you made to find a scientific answer to your question?

  You could try "Evolution - What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters" by Donald Prothero.

  Scientists do not just "throw numbers around".
• 

  cofty

  Here is your starter.

  Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens ...
• 

  Finkelstein

  I feel like if you are going to believe what they say about past times then you might as well believe what Jehovah's witnesses say.

  Scientists base their findings on factual evidence and long repetitive testing, not mythological hearsay from ancient tribal civilizations.
  

  Archaeological dating is done so by using various and different methodological tools.

  These dating practiced are at times measured by the earth's own geological evolution.

  Dating methodologies in archaeology

  From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

  Dating is process of estimating the age of ancient materials and deposits remains or determining a chronology or calendar of events in the history of Earth. Dating material drawn from the archaeological record can be made by a direct study of an artifact, or may be deduced by association with materials found in the context the item is drawn from or inferred by its point of discovery in the sequence relative to datable contexts. Dating is carried out mainly post excavation, but to support good practice, some preliminary dating work called "spot dating" is usually run in tandem with excavation. Dating is very important in archaeology for constructing models of the past, as it relies on the integrity of dateble objects and samples. Many disciplines of archaeological science are concerned with dating evidence.

  Contents

  [hide]

  • 1 Dating methods
    • 1.1 Absolute methods
    • 1.2 Relative methods
    • 1.3 Written markers
    • 1.4 Age-equivalent stratigraphic markers
  • 2 Stratigraphic relationships
    • 2.1 Residual and intrusive Finds
  • 3 See also
  • 4 References
  • 5 Literature

  Dating methods[edit]

  Absolute methods[edit]

  Absolute dating methods rely on using some physical property of an object or sample to calculate its age. Examples are:

  • Radiocarbon dating - for dating organic materials (Maximum 50,000 to 60,000 years old)
  • Dendrochronology - for dating trees, and objects made from wood, but also very important for calibrating radiocarbon dates
  • Thermoluminescence dating - for dating inorganic material including ceramics
  • Optically or optical dating for archaeological applications
  • Potassium–argon dating - for dating fossilized hominid remains
  • Argon–argon dating - for dating fossilized hominid remains
  • Archaeomagnetic dating - Clay lined fire hearths take on a magnetic moment pointing to the North Pole each time they are fired and then cool. The position of the North Pole for the last time the fire hearth was used can be determined and compared to charts of known locations and dates[1]
  • Lead Corrosion Dating.[2]
  • Amino acid dating[3][4][5][6]
  • Obsidian hydration dating - a geochemical method of determining age in either absolute or relative terms of an artifact made of obsidian
  • Rehydroxylation dating - for dating ceramic materials[7]
• 

  DesirousOfChange

  but is it really based on the truth or an assumption. Estimating things are at least 65 billion years old seems to be just them throwing numbers around.

  I think your reasoning is still based on some of the BS you learned as a JW to debunk carbon dating.

  Go back and read again what Cofty said and recommended. Then come back here.

  Trust me. You'll be surprised how mislead you (all of us) were. We were sold lots of BS masquerading as "science".

  Doc
  
• 

  Syd Netley

  I think Caupon has a point.

  All dating techniques are based on assumptions. Assumptions about initial conditions, assumptions about rates of decay. Hence the need for calibration. But calibration doesn't eliminate assumptions. It just compares one set of assumptions with another set. You would think tree rings would be pretty reliable. But even there, trees can grow more than one ring in the same season depending on conditions.

  It all comes down to this: who do you trust?