Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome! Arrowheadology.com is the #1 arrowhead and Indian artifact community on the web. Join us now!

Likes Likes:  24
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 44
  1. #11
    Chert Hound
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,330
    Post Thanks / Like
    Carbon dating is in no way, shape or form a "guess"...
    sci∑en∑tif∑ic meth∑od
    noun
    noun: scientific method; plural noun: scientific methods

    a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
    The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[2] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.
    O.A.S.A.R. ( Ohio Artifact Search And Recovery)

  2. Likes swataramike liked this post
  3. #12
    Tribal Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Central Pennsylvachia
    Posts
    4,510
    Post Thanks / Like
    OK. I'll be the bad guy.

    One sad lesson of history is that while human beings genuinely believe they agree with the constraints the scientific procedure entails, they are unfortunately hardwired to function on the basis of belief, which is immune to reason, to common sense, and even to personal experience. In archaeology, as the evidence against it accumulated, the fantastic intellectual contortions of the Clovis First true believers should have demonstrated this once and for all. But rather than learning from it (and -- pardon the expression -- repenting of their erroneous ways), people merely replaced one set of beliefs with another set.

    Any time you are presented with sweeping, dogmatic certainty in categorical generalizations that brook no questioning, you are encountering belief, even though this is, paradoxically, belief in what people call "science." You can prove this to yourself by trying to discuss such peoples' beliefs rationally with them. If these were, as they believe, rational conclusions drawn from empirical evidence (i.e., actual science), this would follow naturally. Both the data and the validity of the conclusions drawn from them would be fair game for discussion. But since it is belief calling itself "science," and belief interprets disagreement as a threat, you will trigger a hostile reaction. Not only will you be wrong, but evil to boot. (21st century politics in a nutshell).

    All false certainties aside, you might care to consider:

    Scientists at the Lamont-Doherty Geological Laboratory of Columbia University at Palisades, N.Y., reported today [May 31, 1990] in the British journal Nature that some estimates of age based on carbon analyses were wrong by as much as 3,500 years. They arrived at this conclusion by comparing age estimates obtained using two different methods - analysis of radioactive carbon in a sample and determination of the ratio of uranium to thorium in the sample. In some cases, the latter ratio appears to be a much more accurate gauge of age than the customary method of carbon dating, the scientists said.
    ERRORS ARE FEARED IN CARBON DATING - NYTimes.com

    We investigated a cluster of especially young radiocarbon dates concentrated in the north-central area of North America. For example, at the Gainey site in Michigan a 2880 yr B.P. radio-carbon date was reported, while the thermoluminescence date for that site is 12,400 yr B.P.5 Other anomalous dates found at Leavitt in Michigan, 6 Zander and Thedford in Ontario,7 Potts in New York,8 Alton in Indiana, 9 and Grant Lake in Nunavut 10 are summarized in Table 1. The Grant Lake Paleoindian site is most remarkable because its 160 [rc] yr B.P. age is nearly contemporary, while adjacent and deeper samples give ages of 1480Ė3620 [rc] yr B.P.
    TERRESTRIAL EVIDENCE OF A NUCLEAR CATASTROPHE IN PALEOINDIAN TIMES

  4. Likes swataramike liked this post
  5. #13
    PhD in Arrowheadology
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    lebanon county, pennsylvania
    Posts
    3,142
    Post Thanks / Like
    thank you uniface...i always tend to sway from popular beliefs...i agree with you most people can be wrong sometimes way wrong
    When you are riding in a time machine way far into the future,
    Do not stick your elbow out of the window, Or it will turn into a fossil.

  6. #14
    Kingfisher
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    127
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by swataramike View Post
    ok so I want to keep this calm I know this question has been debated over time a lot....I want peoples opinions no arguments...I totally understand how they get dates of artifacts by carbon dating rock around it ..my question is how do they know that catastrophic events didn't mix or age rock differently...no one really knows the age of the earth its all theory or at best a guess...I know its a hard question but am I right or wrong saying it is all a guess ...like saying maybe paleo stuf is only 5000 years old...a good example is mt st helens may 1982...a whole mountain was changed instantly ...
    St Helens blew May 19th, 1980. I heard it go!

  7. Likes swataramike liked this post
  8. #15
    Junior Relic Hunter
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    northcentral north dakota
    Posts
    32
    Post Thanks / Like
    Carbon dating is also backed up by other scientific dating techniques. One of which is dendochronoloy(tree rings). Another is varves, which are deposition layers of silt usually found in fresh water lakes. Simply put. Count the rings on a redwood and carbon date it. Count the winter and summer silt deposition layers in a lake by coring and carbon date organics in a layer. Through series analysis and averaging carbon dating becomes increasingly more accurate.

  9. Likes Bobby, uniface, pointblank1 liked this post
  10. #16
    Arrowheadologist
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    203
    Post Thanks / Like

  11. Likes uniface liked this post
  12. #17
    Tribal Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Point Blank , TEXAS
    Posts
    4,709
    Post Thanks / Like
    Or we might just let this thread die ...........</ :-)

  13. #18
    PhD in Arrowheadology
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    lebanon county, pennsylvania
    Posts
    3,142
    Post Thanks / Like
    Some great info ......
    When you are riding in a time machine way far into the future,
    Do not stick your elbow out of the window, Or it will turn into a fossil.

  14. #19
    Tribal Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Central Pennsylvachia
    Posts
    4,510
    Post Thanks / Like
    Both Dr. Gramly and Bill Breckinridge are doing cutting edge raman laser analysis that produces consistent results congruent with other dating methods.

  15. #20
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Hong Kong & Florida
    Posts
    8,020
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by uniface View Post
    Both Dr. Gramly and Bill Breckinridge are doing cutting edge raman laser analysis that produces consistent results congruent with other dating methods.
    They can calibrate it to match anything... letís see some real testing and peer review. Extraordinary claims require at least that.

    Full disclosure, Iíve sent rocks to Dr. Gramly for him to study and test. I like him, but I have doubts about the validity of the tests here.

 

 

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •