To: 2ndDivisionVet
Still think carbon dating is highly inaccurate. Way too many zeroes on the ages, they need to take off two or so.
4 posted on
09/14/2015 5:04:27 PM PDT by
madison10
(If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter)
To: madison10
The assumption is that time has been constant throughout the ages.
6 posted on
09/14/2015 5:08:01 PM PDT by
doc1019
(Out of my mind ... back in 5)
To: madison10
This is not carbon dating. It is dating by using the number of changes in the DNA.
Lots of assumptions, the primary on that changes in the DNA sequences are aquired at a fairly constant rate, in separate species.
9 posted on
09/14/2015 5:12:10 PM PDT by
marktwain
To: madison10
Obviously there is some kind of problem. Maybe climate change is effecting the results.
If one is wrong...they're all wrong.
To: madison10
Still think carbon dating is highly inaccurate. Way too many zeroes on the ages, they need to take off two or so.Article says they are using DNA sequencing not radio carbon dating. Not saying I know how accurate the DNA sequencing is, but certainly carbon dating over 100,000 years would not be.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson