The dentition pattern evident on the "skull" is more consistent with the common domesticated dog than it is with the "ravenous man-eating Pliocene clams" you speculate roamed the wetlands during that time.This latter finding is certainly one of the most intriguing hypotheses you have submitted in your history with this institution, but the evidence seems to weigh rather heavily against it.originally posted by: inert a reply to: Operation Black Rose I also have to think lab techniques have become better since the 1960's and 70's because of issues like this.
Girl felicia webcam strip tease schweiz - Funny carbon dating results
All they ever do is throw around their banter and how that someone, somewhere, will lap up and believe in their God-induced beliefs, which coincidentally, have not scientific merit whatsoever.
So, without further ado, I would like to proceed to one of the more controversial topics amongst the Creationist community (not the Scientific Community): Carbon Dating.
There have been numerous theories purporting to explain how the tests could have produced false results, but so far they have all been rejected by the scientific establishment.
Many people remain convinced that the shroud is genuine.
Ancient hominid remains are typically fossilized bone.
The cranial capacity of the specimen is approximately 9 cubic centimeters, well below the threshold of even the earliest identified proto-hominids. I have read studies, papers and more, showing that Carbon-Dating can have an error rate of 200% Here are just a few extracts from science journal that got my attention."The lower leg lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY, while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY." (Natural History 1949) 'Living mollusk shell were carbon dated as being 2,300 years old.' (Science 1963) 'A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1,300 years ago' (Antarctic Journal 1971) "One part of Dima (a baby frozen mammoth) was 40,000, another part was 26,000 and the 'wood immediately around the carcass' was 9-10,000." (Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 1975) 'Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old.' (Science 1984) "The two Colorado Creek, AK mammoths had radiocarbon ages of 22,850 ±670 and 16,150 ±230 years respectively." (Quaternary Research 1992) "One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years old and another part at 44,000." (Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 1975) And one of my favorite extracts.This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th-century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read." (Anthropological Journal of Canada 1981) (working of notes I made, will go back to read entire articles and papers) carbon dating is not the only dating method used, it's just the most popular/easy to understand i think there are over a dozen dating methods, here straight from good old wikipedia Radiocarbon dating - for dating organic materials Dendrochronology - for dating trees, and objects made from wood, but also very important for calibrating radiocarbon dates Thermoluminescence dating - for dating inorganic material including ceramics Optically stimulated luminescence or optical dating for archaeological applications Potassium–argon dating - for dating fossilized hominid remains there are many more of course.And those examples are the typical ones always brought up, it feels like saying "cars are never safe because one of them broke for no reason 22 years ago" The method is not flawless, true, but carbon dating, combined with other methods gives us a very good idea of how old stuff is.David Rolfe, the director of the documentary, said it was hugely significant that Prof Ramsey had thought it necessary to carry out further tests that could challenge the original dating.