Chicken Bones Suggest Polynesians Found Americas Before Columbus

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

What is the issue with carbon dating?

I know it is reasonably reliable, although some years ago I remember reading something about some issues of reliability. As I understand it, for about 10,000 years on it, it is reasonably reliable, but outside of that, it may not be as reliable.

Originally Posted by Black Diamond Bay

Well why would it? The atmosphere was different, the whole make up of the Earth was supposedly different back in the day, yet everything still decomposed at the same rate. Seems like a bit of a stretch imo...and how would they possibly be able to determine such a thing?

This article summarizes the arguments used by Biblical literalists to critique carbon dating.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...bon_dating.asp

Clearly this is not a scientific source. However it is my understanding that scientists are largely satisfied with the radiocarbon approach, and take measures to accommodate for weaknesses in the method. The argument against carbon dating is primarily ad hoc, AFAIK.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Black Diamond Bay

Yes but if the accuracy is only "reasonable" for time periods for which you can actually find dated materials, how can you assume that it's accurate for items even older. You personally are free to trust carbon dating, for myself I remain very skeptical. Anything beyond a couple of hundred years old and I think you're pretty much just making educated guesses.

But there are lots of dated materials that are thousands of years old.

By reasonable, I mean that it won't give you exact date and time, but the margin of error is reasonably small. Certainly small enough that it is far better than what I would call an "educated guess".

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Black Diamond Bay

Yes but if the accuracy is only "reasonable" for time periods for which you can actually find dated materials, how can you assume that it's accurate for items even older. You personally are free to trust carbon dating, for myself I remain very skeptical. Anything beyond a couple of hundred years old and I think you're pretty much just making educated guesses.

I don't believe anybody is using a date certain with carbon dating, but people believe the ranges are reasonable based on scientific principles.

Are you disputing the precision of carbon dating or its range specificity?

[Black Diamond Bay]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

But there are lots of dated materials that are thousands of years old.

By reasonable, I mean that it won't give you exact date and time, but the margin of error is reasonably small. Certainly small enough that it is far better than what I would call an "educated guess".

Yeah read the article that Barbara posted. It's these admitted anomalies that pretty much rattle my faith in the whole process. I'm sticking with educated guess.

[Black Diamond Bay]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I don't believe anybody is using a date certain with carbon dating, but people believe the ranges are reasonable based on scientific principles.

Are you disputing the precision of carbon dating or its range specificity?

Range specificity, I have no expectation that they're actually attempting to nail down one firm year. I'm not convinced that time even elapsed at the same rate today as it did a couple thousand years ago. I take carbon dating to be a probable theory depending on how old they're trying to claim something to be. The older they claim the artifact to be, the less trusting I become of carbon dating.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Requiem

??? Is "he" anti-science, ergo anti-reason, logic, truth and evolution?

Are you trying to be funny?

Mike, why don't you start a forum called "Book of Mormon scientific proofs" where articles about Thor Hyerdal and ancient chicken bones in the Americas and such can be posted.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Black Diamond Bay

Range specificity, I have no expectation that they're actually attempting to nail down one firm year. I'm not convinced that time even elapsed at the same rate today as it did a couple thousand years ago. I take carbon dating to be a probable theory depending on how old they're trying to claim something to be. The older they claim the artifact to be, the less trusting I become of carbon dating.

What's your point? Do you claim the earth is 6,000 years old? Is that it?

[Black Diamond Bay]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

What's your point? Do you claim the earth is 6,000 years old? Is that it?

Sounds like someone has had a rough day today?

I don't know how old the earth is, and I'm quite certain that you don't either. How is that relevant to this conversation?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

He will suspect that you are using the article to prove Mormonism true. and then he will have a stroke.

WHy does this tend to prove mormonism? Hagoth went the other way, didn't he?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Black Diamond Bay

Sounds like someone has had a rough day today?

I don't know how old the earth is, and I'm quite certain that you don't either. How is that relevant to this conversation?

The reason people such as the article Barbara posted contrive arguments against carbon dating is to try to support the Biblical timeline.