There is attempt by scientists to date anything older then 40,000 years. There are many methods scientists use to date materials older than 40,000 years.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How would we know if a species was newly evolved?
- Thread starter Dan From Smithville
- Start date
There is attempt by scientists to date anything older then 40,000 years. There are many methods scientists use to date materials older than 40,000 years.
It is a fact that Science never intended to date inorganic materials by C14 dating. The reference I provided addresses this, Your intentional ignorance of basic science is appalling.
@Tiberius In reference to the sunlight, I should have used a more scientifically acceptable term, such as atmospheric changes: 
Sorry. Next is from the New York Times::
ERRORS ARE FEARED IN CARBON DATING - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
"The group theorizes that large errors in carbon dating result from fluctuations in the amount of carbon 14 in the air. Changes in the Earth's magnetic field would change the deflection of cosmic-ray particles streaming toward the Earth from the Sun."
Sorry. Next is from the New York Times::ERRORS ARE FEARED IN CARBON DATING - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
"The group theorizes that large errors in carbon dating result from fluctuations in the amount of carbon 14 in the air. Changes in the Earth's magnetic field would change the deflection of cosmic-ray particles streaming toward the Earth from the Sun."
Never intended, lol, but statements of assumed dates are not underlined with caveats stating the dates may not be accurate.
Never intended...I'm learning -- ERRORS ARE FEARED IN CARBON DATING - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
"The group theorizes that large errors in carbon dating result from fluctuations in the amount of carbon 14 in the air. Changes in the Earth's magnetic field would change the deflection of cosmic-ray particles streaming toward the Earth from the Sun."
I doubt I'll ever have the education you have, nevertheless -- you're helping me to learn, and so I hope you read the NY Times article about how scientists are theorizing large errors in the dating process. (oops...)
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
I did not use the scientifically correct terms, as I recalled from the article it was first talking about the atmosphere affecting the carbon14. I said sunlight. So I will go back and work on it, thank you.
So I take it that you are withdrawing your claim?
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
@Tiberius In reference to the sunlight, I should have used a more scientifically acceptable term, such as atmospheric changes:
ERRORS ARE FEARED IN CARBON DATING - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
"The group theorizes that large errors in carbon dating result from fluctuations in the amount of carbon 14 in the air. Changes in the Earth's magnetic field would change the deflection of cosmic-ray particles streaming toward the Earth from the Sun."
Can you link to the actual scientific paper rather than a newspaper?
And what are these "large errors" in carbon dating? Can you show these erroneous results?
"Radiocarbon dating is a key tool archaeologists use to determine the age of plants and objects made with organic material. But new research shows that commonly accepted radiocarbon dating standards can miss the mark -- calling into question historical timelines." I didn't say it. www.sciencedaily.com
Please continue reading posts, especially from NY Times. But since I didn't quote from what I read, I'm working on that rather than writing from memory.
Ask the scientists spoken of in the report by the NY Times. I've asked the same type questions of so-called knowledgeable ones here about promoting scientific dating processes as if they're almost like engraved in stone (almost pun intended) that you are asking me and get only insults from certain ones.
@Tiberius -- you also might want to read the article from which I offer a quote about the controversy of dating accuracy --
"Our work indicates that it's arguable their fundamental basis is faulty – they are using a calibration curve that is not accurate for this region," says Manning."
A Crucial Archaeological Dating Tool Is Wrong, And It Could Change History as We Know It (sciencealert.com)
As I said, I've asked similar questions to yours of those clinging to the substance of scientific analysis and dating accuracy and of course, this is a message board, of those espousing to be better educated than I am (which is likely true) about these things, and I've been called ignorant, and willfully ignorant with no substantive answers to my questions beyond that. So I suggest you might read the entire article.
"Our work indicates that it's arguable their fundamental basis is faulty – they are using a calibration curve that is not accurate for this region," says Manning."
A Crucial Archaeological Dating Tool Is Wrong, And It Could Change History as We Know It (sciencealert.com)
As I said, I've asked similar questions to yours of those clinging to the substance of scientific analysis and dating accuracy and of course, this is a message board, of those espousing to be better educated than I am (which is likely true) about these things, and I've been called ignorant, and willfully ignorant with no substantive answers to my questions beyond that. So I suggest you might read the entire article.
I didn't write the article...:
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
That link is just to the Science Daily website.
It would be far more useful if you provided a link to the actual article there that discusses this. Or, even better, provide a link to the original paper that Science Daily is talking about.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
Please continue reading posts, especially from NY Times. But since I didn't quote from what I read, I'm working on that rather than writing from memory.
I prefer to get my science from scientists, not journalists.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
That article in the New York Times is more than THIRTY years old! It was published in 1990!
If what it spoke of had any merit, then carbon dating would not still be used. Since Carbon dating is still being used, it seems that the problems spoken of in the article either were unfounded, or they have been corrected for with modern carbon dating.
In either case, there is no reason to think that the problems affect modern carbon dating techniques.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
Here is the actual scientific paper that discusses this: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1719420115
Even if true, (which I'm happy to agree to unless evidence to disprove it is presented), this does not render carbon dating invalid. It simply presents a new corrective process that needs to be implemented for samples from a particular region. It's hardly going to result in the "Everything we ever thought is completely wrong!" attitude.
Indeed, reading the paper, they say the original measurements gave an error of +/- 20 years, so their updated estimate of 19 years or so is within that margin of error.
Remember - get your science from scientists, not journalists. Journalists only care about getting people to read the article. They don't care if they are getting the science right. Follow the trail, find the actual paper. In this it was just a matter of following the links and took me all of thirty seconds.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
I didn't write the article...:
I'm not saying you did write it.
I'm asking you to see if you can find it so we can look at what the paper actually says instead of having to go by what some journalist thinks the scientific paper says.
Yes, I'm quoting from the article, but I do believe the writer mentions the scientists by name. What is it you want to question?
I'll get more into that later. So things have changed you think, since 1990? Yes, the article was written in 1990. From your answer, I suspect you don't know. Since you say either the problems spoken of in the article were either unfounded, or corrected. But you don't know if the article states the situation correctly, or if the dating process is in serious question, is that right?
Which scientists are you speaking of?
I believe there is more precise scientific opinion and information in the following:
Fluctuating radiocarbon offsets observed in the southern Levant and implications for archaeological chronology debates | PNAS