Ancient Civilizations

[Earthling]

There's none so blind...

I wonder. Is dining on bushmeat cannibalism?

 

[siti]

I wonder. Is dining on bushmeat cannibalism?

Only for those who insist they have not evolved from apes...yet.

 

[Earthling]

Only for those who insist they have not evolved from apes...yet.

Wouldn't that be backwards. Only for those who think they have evolved from apes? I'm assuming that if any of us have evolved then we all have . . . unless you want to draw some conclusion along the lines of eugenics.

 

[Ellen Brown]

yes. I am cool with that. I am not interested in changing your mind unless you want to.

I am glad that you haven't experienced living when you should be dead.

 

[siti]

unless you want to draw some conclusion along the lines of eugenics.

No - more "RFpostgenics" I think. Anyway, this is entirely off topic. Your argument was against carbon-14 dating - you might want to look up how scientists are able (in some cases) to match up tree ring data (dendrochronology) with carbon-14 data - for example. Radiometric dating techniques generally are based on observed radioactive decay rates - a compelling example that by itself pretty well gives the lie to so-called "young earth creationism" is Uranium/Thorium dating of cave art. This is done by measuring the ratio of thorium-230 to uranium-234 in carbonates - e.g. in stalactites that have been precipitated on top of the cave art. The water seeping into the caves contains a trace amount of uranium but no thorium because uranium is slightly soluble in water and thorium is not. Uranium-234 decays to thorium-230 so that as time passes the ratio of 230-Th to 234-U increases until it reaches a point at which thorium decays as fast as it forms - and that ratio indicates the age of the stalactite - which, if it has formed on top of the cave art - is the youngest possible age for the cave art - the stalactite clearly could not have formed on top of it BEFORE the cave art was drawn. There are various methods used to measure the relative amounts of the radioactive isotopes, but when mass spectrometry is used, precisions of +/- 1% are achievable. Using these techniques, ages of between about 17,000 and 40,000+ years ago have been determined for cave art at different sites in Europe and Asia. Clearly, humans have been drawing pictures of the "creation" for much longer than many suppose the "creation" has existed.

There, now you should have something to write about.

 

[Earthling]

No - more "RFpostgenics" I think. Anyway, this is entirely off topic. Your argument was against carbon-14 dating - you might want to look up how scientists are able (in some cases) to match up tree ring data (dendrochronology) with carbon-14 data - for example. Radiometric dating techniques generally are based on observed radioactive decay rates - a compelling example that by itself pretty well gives the lie to so-called "young earth creationism" is Uranium/Thorium dating of cave art. This is done by measuring the ratio of thorium-230 to uranium-234 in carbonates - e.g. in stalactites that have been precipitated on top of the cave art. The water seeping into the caves contains a trace amount of uranium but no thorium because uranium is slightly soluble in water and thorium is not. Uranium-234 decays to thorium-230 so that as time passes the ratio of 230-Th to 234-U increases until it reaches a point at which thorium decays as fast as it forms - and that ratio indicates the age of the stalactite - which, if it has formed on top of the cave art - is the youngest possible age for the cave art - the stalactite clearly could not have formed on top of it BEFORE the cave art was drawn. There are various methods used to measure the relative amounts of the radioactive isotopes, but when mass spectrometry is used, precisions of +/- 1% are achievable. Using these techniques, ages of between about 17,000 and 40,000+ years ago have been determined for cave art at different sites in Europe and Asia. Clearly, humans have been drawing pictures of the "creation" for much longer than many suppose the "creation" has existed.

There, now you should have something to write about.

Honestly, you thought I didn't have something to write about before that? I mean [he said, breaking out the old Creation book] what about the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, “Radiocarbon Dating Wrong,” January 18, 1976, p. C8. "A conference of the world’s experts, including radiochemists, archaeologists and geologists, was held in Uppsala, Sweden, to compare notes. The report of their conference showed that the fundamental assumptions on which the measurements were based had been found untrustworthy to a greater or lesser degree. For example, it found that the rate of radioactive carbon formation in the atmosphere has not been consistent in the past and that this method is not reliable in dating objects from about 2,000 B.C.E. or before." (Link)

I mean . . . c'mon!

 

[siti]

Hmmm! Where's the emoji showing an idea going straight over someone's head?

OK - forget about 1976 - forget about radiocarbon dating if you wish - what about the uranium-series dated 40K year-old stalactites on top of cave art of clearly human origin? That has nothing to do with radiocarbon dating.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Seattle Post-Intelligencer: An on-line newspaper with 208,000 visitors per day in 2010 (as Wikipedia tells me). Is that a recognized scientific journal? Does it still exist?

 

[Earthling]

Hmmm! Where's the emoji showing an idea going straight over someone's head?

I think it's your avatar.

OK - forget about 1976 - forget about radiocarbon dating if you wish - what about the 40K year-old stalactites on top of cave art of clearly human origin?

How's it dated? Signed Prometheus & Bob, 40,000 BP (38000 B.C.E.)?

 

[Earthling]

Seattle Post-Intelligencer: An on-line newspaper with 208,000 visitors per day in 2010 (as Wikipedia tells me). Is that a recognized scientific journal? Does it still exist?

Oh, I don't know . . . who really cares?

 

[siti]

How's it dated?

At the risk of repeating myself, I shall repeat...repeatedly if necessary - repetition for emphasis, if you like - you must remember that one from the old TMS guidebook?

Radiometric dating techniques generally are based on observed radioactive decay rates - a compelling example that by itself pretty well gives the lie to so-called "young earth creationism" is Uranium/Thorium dating of cave art. This is done by measuring the ratio of thorium-230 to uranium-234 in carbonates - e.g. in stalactites that have been precipitated on top of the cave art. The water seeping into the caves contains a trace amount of uranium but no thorium because uranium is slightly soluble in water and thorium is not. Uranium-234 decays to thorium-230 so that as time passes the ratio of 230-Th to 234-U increases until it reaches a point at which thorium decays as fast as it forms - and that ratio indicates the age of the stalactite - which, if it has formed on top of the cave art - is the youngest possible age for the cave art - the stalactite clearly could not have formed on top of it BEFORE the cave art was drawn. There are various methods used to measure the relative amounts of the radioactive isotopes, but when mass spectrometry is used, precisions of +/- 1% are achievable. Using these techniques, ages of between about 17,000 and 40,000+ years ago have been determined for cave art at different sites in Europe and Asia. Clearly, humans have been drawing pictures of the "creation" for much longer than many suppose the "creation" has existed.

There, now you should have something to write about.

PS - in the above I should have said "minimum ages of between 17,000 and 40,000+ years..."

 

[sooda]

Strata is very unreliable as well. It's all guess work. If, in 2000 years, they discover the viking amulet some guy bought online for 16 bucks, or clams or whatever you call them along with their laptop they would assume they are both from the same period leaves a hell of a margin of error.

That's very simplistic ….. Was the Viking amulet hand made or extruded plastic?

 

[Earthling]

That's very simplistic ….. Was the Viking amulet hand made or extruded plastic?

Is that a joke? Actually it was "Rare! Antique Viking amulet pendant 10-12th Century Authentic bronze artifact!" if you believe everything you read. (Link) Apparently it's gone up in price since then or I read it wrong. I thought it said 16 not 32. Just goes to show you.

 

[sooda]

Is that a joke? Actually it was "Rare! Antique Viking amulet pendant 10-12th Century Authentic bronze artifact!" if you believe everything you read. (Link) Apparently it's gone up in price since then or I read it wrong. I thought it said 16 not 32. Just goes to show you.

Have you been to Byblos or Baalbek?

 

[Earthling]

Have you been to Byblos or Baalbek?

Uhhhmmm . . . I'm going to assume that I haven't. Let me do a quick search. Uh, no. I have not. I went to Iowa and Wisconsin, does that count?

 

[sooda]

Uhhhmmm . . . I'm going to assume that I haven't. Let me do a quick search. Uh, no. I have not. I went to Iowa and Wisconsin, does that count?

Well, have you ever been to an archaeological site?

 

[Earthling]

Well, have you ever been to an archaeological site?

Let's see . . . I was drunk once and fell into a hole, but I think that was a construction project of some kind. That period of my life is understandably a condition of greatly dulled or completely suspended sense or sensibility . . . specifically a chiefly mental condition marked by absence of spontaneous movement, greatly diminished responsiveness to stimulation, and usually impaired consciousness.

Was, uh, was there a point to this line of questioning?

 

[sooda]

Let's see . . . I was drunk once and fell into a hole, but I think that was a construction project of some kind. That period of my life is understandably a condition of greatly dulled or completely suspended sense or sensibility . . . specifically a chiefly mental condition marked by absence of spontaneous movement, greatly diminished responsiveness to stimulation, and usually impaired consciousness.

Was, uh, was there a point to this line of questioning?

Oh because I am not really smart enough to explain in detail how archaeologists date stuff.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Honestly, you thought I didn't have something to write about before that? I mean [he said, breaking out the old Creation book] what about the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, “Radiocarbon Dating Wrong,” January 18, 1976, p. C8. "A conference of the world’s experts, including radiochemists, archaeologists and geologists, was held in Uppsala, Sweden, to compare notes. The report of their conference showed that the fundamental assumptions on which the measurements were based had been found untrustworthy to a greater or lesser degree. For example, it found that the rate of radioactive carbon formation in the atmosphere has not been consistent in the past and that this method is not reliable in dating objects from about 2,000 B.C.E. or before." (Link)

I mean . . . c'mon!

Your link takes me to a bogus site.

And supposedly that article was from 1976. If true that means the problem was recognized and corrections would have been made. Using dendrochronology carbon dating can be accurately correlated going about ten thousand years back:

Radiocarbon Dating, Tree Rings, Dendrochronology

 

[Earthling]

Oh because I am not really smart enough to explain in detail how archaeologists date stuff.

Not to me you're not. Too much of a challenge for you, huh? Don't let it bother you, I think you posted some interesting stuff. When you were talking to yourself, that is. Before the riff-raff descended not unlike the viking hordes. Isn't that just the way it goes?