| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
 |
|
|
Just to be sure, and since it is so important, do the pro-Darwinists (aka orthoxy) accept that two mammoth samples from the same animal have been reputably carbon-dated "thousands of years apart". And if this is the case, how far back are we talking about?
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Chad wrote: | | ...but for the period covering the last 800 years they should be more reliable because calibration samples from this period can be verified against dendrochronology. |
Fomenko claims Dendochronology is almost useless as well.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Chad wrote: | | I do though, think this may be over-egging the pudding a little, my best guesstimate for raw carbon dates would be an uncertainty of ±(10%+500yrs). |
Have I understood correctly - if a raw carbon dating put the Great Pyramid of Cheops at, say, 2500BC we can be confident it is pretty definitely in the range 3,250 - 1,750BC? Because if that is so then it would rule out contemporaneity with the Maya.
And on the subject of pyramidal shaped structures there were several other cultures that were attracted by the form although not quite on the same scale as the Egyptians. So this might be another case of multiple points of origin.
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | | I am now officially bored. |
Is this code for "Yes you are right. I admit that I was wrong"?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| berniegreen wrote: | | So this might be another case of multiple points of origin. |
I've yet to see you identify one case yet.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| berniegreen wrote: | | Ishmael wrote: | | I am now officially bored. |
Is this code for "Yes you are right. I admit that I was wrong"? |
No. It is code for you bore me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
| berniegreen wrote: | | Have I understood correctly - if a raw carbon dating put the Great Pyramid of Cheops at, say, 2500BC we can be confident it is pretty definitely in the range 3,250 - 1,750BC? |
Are you confusing BC with BP? my uncertainty figure would give a range of ± 950 yrs (not 750).
As for the level of confidence we can apply to that figure; it depends on whether or not this was a one off measurement or the mean of several measurements. Repeatability is very important in determining confidence levels. And don't forget the figure I gave was a guesstimate, not a scientifically derived uncertainty budget (I would need far more data from the actual experiment to assemble that).
| Because if that is so then it would rule out contemporaneity with the Maya. |
Not sure I would go that far... I have seen carbon dates for the Great Pyramid of between 150 and 400 BC.
I'll file that one: 'Needs more work'.
UPDATE
I've now seen dates for the Mirador pyramids (Guatemala) similar to those above for the Great Pyramid.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grant
|
|
|
|
| Just to be sure, and since it is so important, do the pro-Darwinists (aka orthoxy) accept that two mammoth samples from the same animal have been reputably carbon-dated "thousands of years apart". And if this is the case, how far back are we talking about? |
Further research on t'internet shows that the original creationist allegation is a fabrication - see http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie001.html
I was getting a bit carried away!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
