• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Footprints oldest evidence of humans in the Americas 23,000 years old

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Another interesting article about the intricacies of radiocarbon dating:
Is carbon dating a reliable method for determining the age of things? | GotQuestions.org
That article started out rather well and then they make claims such as this:

"Likewise, different living things absorb or reject carbon-14 at different rates. Two plants that died at the same moment, but which naturally contained different levels of radiocarbon, could be dated to drastically different times."

That is the sort of claim that requires a highly reliable source. It does not appear to be true. How is a plant supposed to tell the difference. There is a slight difference in how much C13 plants take up from the percentage in the atmosphere. There is probably a similar difference for C14. It is a rather small effect. Saying that it can change the dates requires strong evidence.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Another interesting article about the intricacies of radiocarbon dating:
Is carbon dating a reliable method for determining the age of things? | GotQuestions.org

The problem is this is a religious site and it does not have an author to determine if it is written by qualified scientist. There is insufficient information in the article determine that the author knows the contemporary methods of Carbon dating.

I do not consider it a reliable scientific source.
 

Truthseeker

Non-debating member when I can help myself
It's My Birthday!
Footprints oldest evidence of humans in the Americas 23,000 years old
Today, 03:51 PM

Source: Earliest definitive evidence of people in Americas



Earliest definitive evidence of people in Americas


By Paul Rincon
Science editor, BBC News website
Published1 hour ago
Share
_120662000_p1120375.jpg


IMAGE SOURCE,BOURNEMOUTH UNIVERSITYimage captionThe footprints belonged to teenagers and children who lived between 23,000 and 21,000 years ago

Humans reached the Americas at least 7,000 years earlier than previously thought, according to new findings.

The topic of when the continent was first settled from Asia has been controversial for decades.

Many researchers are sceptical of evidence for humans in the North American interior much earlier than 16,000 years ago.

Now, a team working in New Mexico has found scores of human footprints dated to between 23,000 and 21,000 years old.

The discovery could transform views about when the continent was settled. It suggests there could have been great migrations that we know nothing about. And it raises the possibility that these earlier populations could have gone extinct.

The footprints were formed in soft mud on the margins of a shallow lake which now forms part of Alkali Flat in White Sands.
A team from the US Geological Survey carried out radiocarbon dating on seeds found in sediment layers above and below where the footprints were found. This gave the researchers remarkably precise dates for the impressions themselves.
Heard of that.

"I can't comment on how reliable the dating is (it is outside my expertise), but firm evidence of humans in North America 23,000 years ago is at odds with the genetics, which clearly shows a split of Native Americans from Asians approximately 15-16,000 years ago," he told BBC News.

"This would suggest that the initial colonists of the Americas were replaced when the ice corridor formed and another wave of colonists came in. We have no idea how that happened."

Hadn't heard that.
 
Last edited:

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
The problem is this is a religious site and it does not have an author to determine if it is written by qualified scientist. There is insufficient information in the article determine that the author knows the contemporary methods of Carbon dating.

I do not consider it a reliable scientific source.
:) Thanks for your answer. The subject is related to the concept of religion and reliability of dating methods. There are many questions about the conclusion of when the footprints happened. Als the reliability of the dating method (I agree it may be the best science has devised, but -- from what I read, it certainly has its problems -- questions -- and I see the change of radioactive material can differ greatly even in one source or studied composition.)
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
:) Thanks for your answer. The subject is related to the concept of religion and reliability of dating methods. There are many questions about the conclusion of when the footprints happened. Als the reliability of the dating method (I agree it may be the best science has devised, but -- from what I read, it certainly has its problems -- questions -- and I see the change of radioactive material can differ greatly even in one source or studied composition.)

Your assertions of questions and problems, again , as in the article you cited reflects a lack of knowledge of science and a religious agenda, which is unacceptable. Your concept of religion and science does not reflect reality.

This does not negate that there are problems and questions, because that is the given nature of science answering questions and solving problems regardless of whether it is the sciences of medicine or evolution.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Heard of that.

"I can't comment on how reliable the dating is (it is outside my expertise), but firm evidence of humans in North America 23,000 years ago is at odds with the genetics, which clearly shows a split of Native Americans from Asians approximately 15-16,000 years ago," he told BBC News.

"This would suggest that the initial colonists of the Americas were replaced when the ice corridor formed and another wave of colonists came in. We have no idea how that happened."

Hadn't heard that.

One thing not brought up in this discovery is that there were several different migrations from Asia. Later migrations may bave become genetically dominant.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
:) Thanks for your answer. The subject is related to the concept of religion and reliability of dating methods. There are many questions about the conclusion of when the footprints happened. Als the reliability of the dating method (I agree it may be the best science has devised, but -- from what I read, it certainly has its problems -- questions -- and I see the change of radioactive material can differ greatly even in one source or studied composition.)
What does religion have to do with dating methods?
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Again - questions
Your assertions of questions and problems, again , as in the article you cited reflects a lack of knowledge of science and a religious agenda, which is unacceptable. Your concept of religion and science does not reflect reality.

This does not negate that there are problems and questions, because that is the given nature of science answering questions and solving problems regardless of whether it is the sciences of medicine or evolution.
I'm looking at a book about Evolution ("Making Sense of Life," subtitle) by Emlen and Zimmer. Do you know anything about it, or how good the authors are?
 
Top