Quote:
Originally Posted by PsYcNeT
Ah creationist science.
The fact of the matter is, at least researchers are applying a scientific method to attempt to figure things out, rather than relying on belief, they rely on proof.
Carbon dating is the best we have at the moment, and as technology increases, so will accuracy.
|
Yes it is and it is faulty. Furthermore these techniques used for dating
supposedly much older objects have know way to be tested for accuracy.
We don't know the original condition of the subject and enviroment; We don't know if the enviroment has stayed constant over the years.; We don't know if the decay rate has remained constant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PsYcNeT
As well, whether or not there are cases of mis-dating because of environmental contamination, there are cases where even accounting for a lapse within a certain amount of time, the dating has been found to be much older than 5,000 years.
|
Actually where contamination occurs the dates jump drastically. The closer the contamination occurs to the original age of the subject the greater the numbers would likely be skewed. Also, enviromental contamination would most likely occur early in the subjects existance if it occured.
Could objects found to be much older than 5000 years demonstrate this early contamination? Or could they represent a false hypothesis concerning what the original subject looked like?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PsYcNeT
even without carbon dating, it can be proven that certain cultures date back well over 5,000 years, ie the Gradesnica Plaque, dating to 7,000 years ago. There have been records of time well before the current estimations based on what is written in the bible, taken into account by cultures other than in the middle east.
|
Was this plaque dated using the techniques we've been discussing or does it show a time line that would go back 7000 years? You know like a list of kings with the number of years they reigned or something?