Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This may be of interest to some. It's behind a paywall, but I believe the New York Times allows a couple of free articles per month.
Quote:
“Based on the similarity or difference in the recorded magnetic signals, we can either corroborate or disprove hypotheses” about when certain layers of sediment might have been destroyed during biblical battles, said Yoav Vaknin, a doctoral candidate at Tel Aviv University and the Hebrew University at Jerusalem, who pioneered the technology. “It all fits together perfectly, better than I had ever imagined.”...
...“With this new data set, we can narrow things down to a decadal level,” said Thomas Levy, an archaeologist at the University of California, San Diego, who was not involved with the study. “That is super important when trying to connect ancient historical events to the archaeological record.”
Here are a couple of snippets from an article that explains the concerns some people have with carbon dating:
It is imperative to remember that the material must have been alive at one point to absorb the carbon, meaning that carbon dating of rocks or other inorganic objects is nothing more than inaccurate guesswork...
So what’s the Problem?
Unfortunately, the believed amount of carbon present at the time of expiration is exactly that: a belief, an assumption, an estimate. It is very difficult for scientists to know how much carbon would have originally been present; one of the ways in which they have tried to overcome this difficulty was through using carbon equilibrium...
In short, the answer is… sometimes. Sometimes carbon dating will agree with other evolutionary methods of age estimation, which is great. Other times, the findings will differ slightly, at which point scientists apply so-called ‘correction tables’ to amend the results and eliminate discrepancies.
Most concerning, though, is when the carbon dating directly opposes or contradicts other estimates. At this point, the carbon dating data is simply disregarded. It has been summed up most succinctly in the words of American neuroscience Professor Bruce Brew:
“If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely out of date, we just drop it.”
Very interesting. I get The Times, and missed this article.
If nothing else, we have further evidence of early biblical events. And it would seem, more accurate evidence.
Very interesting. I get The Times, and missed this article.
If nothing else, we have further evidence of early biblical events. And it would seem, more accurate evidence.
Here are a couple of snippets from an article that explains the concerns some people have with carbon dating:
It is imperative to remember that the material must have been alive at one point to absorb the carbon, meaning that carbon dating of rocks or other inorganic objects is nothing more than inaccurate guesswork...
No one carbon-dates rocks.
Why would anyone be 'concerned' with carbon-dating because it only works on organic things? It's like being 'concerned' with hammers because they're not ideal for using on screws. Carbon-dating is a tool. All tools have application limits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayle White
So what’s the Problem?
Unfortunately, the believed amount of carbon present at the time of expiration is exactly that: a belief, an assumption, an estimate. It is very difficult for scientists to know how much carbon would have originally been present; one of the ways in which they have tried to overcome this difficulty was through using carbon equilibrium...
Your use of the word 'so' suggests that this paragraph expands on the previous one. But it doesn't. It has precisely nothing at all to do with it. Apparently, you're just throwing a lot of things at the wall and hoping one will stick.
Beyond that? No.
The rest of that paragraph is confused. You don't appear to comprehend how carbon-dating (or, I suspect, even radioactive decay) works. Radioactive decay is very well understood and measured. Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5730 +/- 40 years. The ratio of C-14 to the stable isotope C-12 is known. Thus, a sample of wood (for example) that shows X amount of C-14, where X represents 1/2 the normal amount of occurring C-14 in a carbon sample, can be properly understood to be 5730 years old (plus or minus 40 years). There is no estimating going on, as the amount of carbon present in a sample when that sample ceased to be living (and thus ceased to bring carbon into its biological system) is irrelevant. All that matters is the ratio. The only 'assumption' is the prehistoric carbon isotopic ratios have been prehistorically consistent. Except... that assumption has not been made. Willard Libby, pointed this out years before he won the Nobel Prize for developing the carbon-dating technique. Furthermore, we have ways of calibrating prehistoric carbon levels. The classic example is through a comprehensive dendrochronology sequences. For example, in (what is now) Denmark this has been done back to the year 352 CE. In other words, wood samples from, say, the fifth century in Jutland can be precisely dated to the very year the tree from which it came died. Measuring the carbon C-14/C-12 ratios in that wood sample allows precise calibration. In other places in the world, complete dendrochronology sequences extend over 14,000 YBP. Artifacts with known ages (from the historical record) can also be used for calibration, as can samples correlating with ash layers from historically documented volcanic eruptions. And there are other calibrating methods. You blithely dismiss the use of these firmly established standards
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayle White
In short, the answer is… sometimes. Sometimes carbon dating will agree with other evolutionary methods of age estimation, which is great. Other times, the findings will differ slightly, at which point scientists apply so-called ‘correction tables’ to amend the results and eliminate discrepancies.
What are 'evolutionary methods of age estimation'? Rhetorical question: that's not a thing. But it does clarify that you have a problem with evolution.
And 'so-called 'correction tables''? Correction tables are a thing. No, not just in scientific applications that trigger creationists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayle White
Most concerning, though, is when the carbon dating directly opposes or contradicts other estimates. At this point, the carbon dating data is simply disregarded. It has been summed up most succinctly in the words of American neuroscience Professor Bruce Brew:
“If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely out of date, we just drop it.”
I have no idea what expertise you think a neuroscientist has in carbon-dating.
Beyond that? The quote you link has floated around creationist literature for years. And guess what? It has been variously attributed to different people. In the first version, it's hearsay passed on in 1969 by Scandinavian archaeologists quoting a supposed American colleague (who would not have been a neuroscientist). Later, a version drops the second-hand nature of the quote and attributes it directly to the Scandinavians. Finally, this professor (Bruce Brew) is an American neuroscience (this is the version you're peddling). So at what college or university does this professor teach? There is a professor Bruce Brew, and he is a neuroscientist. He's a researcher at the University of Sydney. Sydney, which you may have noticed, is in Australia, and Bruce Brew is an Australian, not an American. There is no trace of any other 'Professor Bruce Brew' anywhere. And this Bruce Brew (who, again, is not American) is clearly not old enough to have been quoted as a professor in 1969 (which would make him at least 80 now).
In the Proceedings of the Symposium on Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology held at Uppsala
in 1969, T. Säve-Söderbergh and I. U. Olsson introduce their report with these words:
C-14 dating was being discussed at a symposium on the prehistory of the Nile Valley. A famous American
colleague, Professor Brew, briefly summarized a common attitude among archaeologists towards it, as
follows: If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict
them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely out of date we just drop it. Few archaeologists who have concerned themselves with absolute chronology are innocent of having sometimes applied this method.
Evolution of Creationist Quote
[The sub-links are all dead, but searching on each quote individually brings forth a number of creationist cites promulgating it]
So who is this Bruce Brew? At what college university does he teach? He's famous, per the quote, and yet there is no trace of him. And why is he spouting words that morph and whose attribution changes depending on which creationist clap-trap cite is promulgating them? I think we all know the answer to that.
Note:
Since you failed indicate that much of your post was cut-and-pasted from the link at the bottom of your post, I assumed it was your original content. You need to properly attribute what others write.
Anyway, garbage in, garbage out. Quit using nonsense propaganda websites which play fast and loose with obviously invented quotations, changing them at will to suit their needs du jour.
But if you don't mind embarrassing yourself, by all means carry on.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
