| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"IKnowHimDoYou" |
| Date: |
07 Jan 2004 12:25:47 PM |
| Object: |
Dating Methods |
Dating Methods
Recent dating methods have been compared with known aged
materials(Egyptian and Babalonian archaeologically dated) and found to be
all over the map in time. The following methods were used:
Carbon 14
Thermoluminescence(TL)
Optically-stimulated luminescence(OSL)
Electron-spin resonance(ESR)
Thorium-urnaium(Th/U)
Protactinium-uranium(Pa/U)
Each of these methods rely on assumptions about unkowns such as radition
rates over time, radiation stored over time, radiation changes in the
environment or the change in sensitivity of the crystal to radiation.
None of the above has been scientifically determined over the time frames
alluded to by the tests.
As an example we can use Mungo man and Mungo woman whose skeletal remains
were found in dry Lake Mungo in south Australia in the 1970's. First
carbon 14 dates showed dates between 19,000 and 24,700 years. Then TL
data gave 42,000 years but in 1999 another test using ESR, OLS , Th/U and
Pa/U gave 62,000 years all on the same samples! That is over 300%
difference. Now apply that to 6000 actual years and you come out with 1.8
million years on the same sample.
One of the archaeologists, J.M. Bowler*, who refused to accept the older
dates stated "You only accept the date if it agrees with what you already
think it should be."!! There is the actual position of the evolutionary
religionists is it not?
*Bowler, J.M. and Magee, J.W., "Redating Austrialia's Oldest Human
Remains; a Sceptic's View," Journal of Human Evolution 38: 719-726, 2000
.
|
|
| User: "E.N." |
|
| Title: Re: Dating Methods |
12 Jan 2004 04:42:20 AM |
|
|
"IKnowHimDoYou" <IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IKnowHim-0701041025470001@pm8-24.kalama.com...
Dating Methods
Recent dating methods have been compared with known aged
materials(Egyptian and Babalonian archaeologically dated) and found to be
all over the map in time. The following methods were used:
Carbon 14
Thermoluminescence(TL)
Optically-stimulated luminescence(OSL)
Electron-spin resonance(ESR)
Thorium-urnaium(Th/U)
Protactinium-uranium(Pa/U)
Each of these methods rely on assumptions about unkowns such as radition
rates over time, radiation stored over time, radiation changes in the
environment or the change in sensitivity of the crystal to radiation.
None of the above has been scientifically determined over the time frames
alluded to by the tests.
True that these methods contradict for good known reasons. But the earth is
measured to be 4.55 billion years old.
God is no wizard.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Dating Methods |
09 Jan 2004 07:48:16 PM |
|
|
(IKnowHimDoYou) wrote in
news:IKnowHim-0701041025470001@pm8-24.kalama.com:
Dating Methods
Recent dating methods have been compared with known aged
materials(Egyptian and Babalonian archaeologically dated) and found to
be all over the map in time. The following methods were used:
Carbon 14
Thermoluminescence(TL)
Optically-stimulated luminescence(OSL)
Electron-spin resonance(ESR)
Thorium-urnaium(Th/U)
Protactinium-uranium(Pa/U)
Each of these methods rely on assumptions about unkowns such as
radition rates over time, radiation stored over time, radiation
changes in the environment or the change in sensitivity of the crystal
to radiation. None of the above has been scientifically determined
over the time frames alluded to by the tests.
In other words, you are claiming that the laws of physics are plastic and
change over time, even though no such changes have actually been
observed.
ANY dating method can exhibit problems, especially when applied
inappropriately, as creationists are wont to do. Even when they are
applied appropriately to marginally suitable materials, they can be
problematic. But IN GENERAL, there is no reason to reject the vast age
of MOST of the materials found at great stratigraphic depth, or even at
much higher depths.
If you wish to claim that radioactive decay rates vary then show an
experiment that causes them to vary under conditions that would not
destroy an isochron.
Otherwise, expect to be treated as a liar when you claim that we simply
ASSUME that they don't change. Because scientists have subjected these
materials to some very stressful conditions and have been unable to
produce any change.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thore Schmechtig" |
|
| Title: Re: Dating Methods |
07 Jan 2004 01:05:54 PM |
|
|
Recent dating methods have been compared with known aged
materials(Egyptian and Babalonian archaeologically dated) and found to be
all over the map in time.
Have you learned to calculate 12 - 9 yet?
UNWRITTEN RULES OF FUNDAMENTALISM
1. "I'm right and you are wrong".
2. Never admit that you are wrong, even if you really are.
3. When you have nothing to say, hurl insults.
4. Regard and portray your own violence, whether physical,
psychological,
or verbal, at all times as defensive
5. Be prepared at all times to lie and bluster, particularly when backed
into a corner in an argument
6. Never accept responsibility for any mess you have personally caused.
7. When you are forced to admit to an error, regard the whole process of
error and correction as part of God's personal plan for you and not as a
something for which you should apologise retract or make amends except
verbally and secretly to God himself
8. Always see yourself and you personal actions as part of God's plans
for
the world. Recognise that even your errors are just part of Gods will
for
the betterment of mankind.
9.Profess humility but avoid the actual experience of it.
10.Refuse to take in information that differs from your own view and
oppose all such information through classification of such information
in
a derogatory and simplistic manner(eg by categorising it as left wing
propaganda)
11.Refuse to accept that truth is not black and white; that reality is
complex and there are shades of grey
12.Refuse to forgive anyone else for anything unless you purport to
forgive on behalf of other people unconnected with you for whom you
don't
have that right anyhow.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tim Coddington" |
|
| Title: Re: Dating Methods |
07 Jan 2004 09:17:09 PM |
|
|
Come on. Check your math. Your'e being an embarassment to yourself and
your God.
300% * 6000 years = 3 * 6000 = 18000 years, not 1800,000 years.
"IKnowHimDoYou" <IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IKnowHim-0701041025470001@pm8-24.kalama.com...
Dating Methods
Recent dating methods have been compared with known aged
materials(Egyptian and Babalonian archaeologically dated) and found to be
all over the map in time. The following methods were used:
Carbon 14
Thermoluminescence(TL)
Optically-stimulated luminescence(OSL)
Electron-spin resonance(ESR)
Thorium-urnaium(Th/U)
Protactinium-uranium(Pa/U)
Each of these methods rely on assumptions about unkowns such as radition
rates over time, radiation stored over time, radiation changes in the
environment or the change in sensitivity of the crystal to radiation.
None of the above has been scientifically determined over the time frames
alluded to by the tests.
As an example we can use Mungo man and Mungo woman whose skeletal remains
were found in dry Lake Mungo in south Australia in the 1970's. First
carbon 14 dates showed dates between 19,000 and 24,700 years. Then TL
data gave 42,000 years but in 1999 another test using ESR, OLS , Th/U and
Pa/U gave 62,000 years all on the same samples! That is over 300%
difference. Now apply that to 6000 actual years and you come out with 1.8
million years on the same sample.
One of the archaeologists, J.M. Bowler*, who refused to accept the older
dates stated "You only accept the date if it agrees with what you already
think it should be."!! There is the actual position of the evolutionary
religionists is it not?
*Bowler, J.M. and Magee, J.W., "Redating Austrialia's Oldest Human
Remains; a Sceptic's View," Journal of Human Evolution 38: 719-726, 2000
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "oz" |
|
| Title: Re: Dating Methods |
07 Jan 2004 04:37:18 PM |
|
|
In article <IKnowHim-0701041025470001@pm8-24.kalama.com>,
IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com (IKnowHimDoYou) wrote:
Dating Methods
Recent dating methods have been compared with known aged
materials(Egyptian and Babalonian archaeologically dated) and found to be
all over the map in time. The following methods were used:
Carbon 14
Thermoluminescence(TL)
Optically-stimulated luminescence(OSL)
Electron-spin resonance(ESR)
Thorium-urnaium(Th/U)
Protactinium-uranium(Pa/U)
Each of these methods rely on assumptions about unkowns such as radition
rates over time, radiation stored over time, radiation changes in the
environment or the change in sensitivity of the crystal to radiation.
None of the above has been scientifically determined over the time frames
alluded to by the tests.
As an example we can use Mungo man and Mungo woman whose skeletal remains
were found in dry Lake Mungo in south Australia in the 1970's. First
carbon 14 dates showed dates between 19,000 and 24,700 years. Then TL
data gave 42,000 years but in 1999 another test using ESR, OLS , Th/U and
Pa/U gave 62,000 years all on the same samples! That is over 300%
difference. Now apply that to 6000 actual years and you come out with 1.8
million years on the same sample.
One of the archaeologists, J.M. Bowler*, who refused to accept the older
dates stated "You only accept the date if it agrees with what you already
think it should be."!! There is the actual position of the evolutionary
religionists is it not?
*Bowler, J.M. and Magee, J.W., "Redating Austrialia's Oldest Human
Remains; a Sceptic's View," Journal of Human Evolution 38: 719-726, 2000
If anyone is interesting in checking what you say it a good place to start is
http://www-personal.une.edu.au/~pbrown3/LM3.html
What you might find interesting is that the question over the dating of
the remains is one that has been raised by the scientific community
itself.
That is how scientists work. They do not assume as creationists do that
they have an absolute map of prehistory that includes the act of Creation
and into which everything they find must fit. They question and discuss
each others findings - sometimes even campaigning against each other
I have yet to see a Fundamentalist or Creationist state that certain items
in the bible are definitely myths and that Bible passsages frequently are
framed within structures of mythology rather than of fact.
You cannot have your cake and eat it. Are you saying that the scientists
who disagree with the datings should simply shut up as Creationists do
when confronted with uncomfortable data?
You have been had - and had badly - and when you realise that one certain
fact in all these postings I hope you kick the arse of the deceiver right
out of your church !!!!
Enough of this crap!
+++++++
=
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim Coddington" |
|
| Title: Re: Dating Methods |
07 Jan 2004 09:03:00 PM |
|
|
"oz" <canterbury@england.com> wrote in message
news:canterbury-0801040937180001@ppp142.dyn27.pacific.net.au...
In article <IKnowHim-0701041025470001@pm8-24.kalama.com>,
IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com (IKnowHimDoYou) wrote:
Dating Methods
Recent dating methods have been compared with known aged
materials(Egyptian and Babalonian archaeologically dated) and found to
be
all over the map in time. The following methods were used:
Carbon 14
Thermoluminescence(TL)
Optically-stimulated luminescence(OSL)
Electron-spin resonance(ESR)
Thorium-urnaium(Th/U)
Protactinium-uranium(Pa/U)
Each of these methods rely on assumptions about unkowns such as radition
rates over time, radiation stored over time, radiation changes in the
environment or the change in sensitivity of the crystal to radiation.
None of the above has been scientifically determined over the time
frames
alluded to by the tests.
As an example we can use Mungo man and Mungo woman whose skeletal
remains
were found in dry Lake Mungo in south Australia in the 1970's. First
carbon 14 dates showed dates between 19,000 and 24,700 years. Then TL
data gave 42,000 years but in 1999 another test using ESR, OLS , Th/U
and
Pa/U gave 62,000 years all on the same samples! That is over 300%
difference. Now apply that to 6000 actual years and you come out with
1.8
million years on the same sample.
One of the archaeologists, J.M. Bowler*, who refused to accept the
older
dates stated "You only accept the date if it agrees with what you
already
think it should be."!! There is the actual position of the evolutionary
religionists is it not?
*Bowler, J.M. and Magee, J.W., "Redating Austrialia's Oldest Human
Remains; a Sceptic's View," Journal of Human Evolution 38: 719-726, 2000
If anyone is interesting in checking what you say it a good place to start
is
http://www-personal.une.edu.au/~pbrown3/LM3.html
Thanks for the reference to the cool artical. Couldn't understand it all
due
to my light knowledge of the jargon, but the data wasn't totally lost.
What you might find interesting is that the question over the dating of
the remains is one that has been raised by the scientific community
itself.
That is how scientists work. They do not assume as creationists do that
they have an absolute map of prehistory that includes the act of Creation
and into which everything they find must fit. They question and discuss
each others findings - sometimes even campaigning against each other
I have yet to see a Fundamentalist or Creationist state that certain items
in the bible are definitely myths and that Bible passsages frequently are
framed within structures of mythology rather than of fact.
You cannot have your cake and eat it. Are you saying that the scientists
who disagree with the datings should simply shut up as Creationists do
when confronted with uncomfortable data?
You have been had - and had badly - and when you realise that one certain
fact in all these postings I hope you kick the arse of the deceiver right
out of your church !!!!
Enough of this crap!
+++++++
=
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alberich" |
|
| Title: Re: Dating Methods |
07 Jan 2004 12:47:32 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 10:25:47 -0800,
(IKnowHimDoYou) wrote:
Dating Methods
Recent dating methods have been compared with known aged
materials(Egyptian and Babalonian archaeologically dated) and found to be
all over the map in time. The following methods were used:
Carbon 14
Thermoluminescence(TL)
Optically-stimulated luminescence(OSL)
Electron-spin resonance(ESR)
Thorium-urnaium(Th/U)
Protactinium-uranium(Pa/U)
Each of these methods rely on assumptions about unkowns such as radition
rates over time, radiation stored over time, radiation changes in the
environment or the change in sensitivity of the crystal to radiation.
None of the above has been scientifically determined over the time frames
alluded to by the tests.
As an example we can use Mungo man and Mungo woman whose skeletal remains
were found in dry Lake Mungo in south Australia in the 1970's. First
carbon 14 dates showed dates between 19,000 and 24,700 years. Then TL
data gave 42,000 years but in 1999 another test using ESR, OLS , Th/U and
Pa/U gave 62,000 years all on the same samples! That is over 300%
difference. Now apply that to 6000 actual years and you come out with 1.8
million years on the same sample.
Let's do some simple math, okay?
Let's make a simple ratio. I'll use the largest span of dates you
give me: From 19000 years to 62000 years for the same sample. Now,
assuming that ratio is always correct, what is the biggest number we
can expect for a value that is actually 6000 years?
19000/62000 = 6000/x
x = (6000)(62000)/(19000)
x = 19578
19578 years.
Of course, you should have been tipped off that 6000 years wouldn't
translate to 1.8 million years when 19000 years, a much larger number
than 6000, only translates to (at most!) 62000 years on the same
sample! Then again, I suppose math isn't the strong suit of a young
earth creationist.
But to be fair, let's do the opposite calculation. Let's see what the
youngest something could be that seems to be 1.8 million years old.
19000/62000 = x/1800000
x = (19000)(1800000)/(62000)
x = 551613
So the *youngest* the sample could be is 550000 years old.
Alberich
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
