35,000 year old "modern human" remains Discovered!

Yahoo News ^ | Sat Mar 6,11:27 AM ET | By ALISON MUTLER, Associated Press Writer

[DannyTN]

"when there are many techniques available to get an answer."

Yes, there is radiometric dating, which suffers from several problems. Then's there is the location in the geologic column, which of course was dated using radiometric dating.

And always in the background is the certain knowledge that funding follows results and only spectacular finds get rewarded. Nobody rewards you for finding 350 year old remains. How much better if you can find 35,000 year old remains.

[hosepipe]

35,000 year old humans.. THATS EASY...

just try to find some LIVING intelligent humans NOW you got a problem... take Mexifornians as an example.. that state is bankrupt and they still LOVE taxes instead of spending less...

We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.~Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

[ThinkPlease]

Yes, there is radiometric dating, which suffers from several problems. Then's there is the location in the geologic column, which of course was dated using radiometric dating.

No, Danny, it's not that simple. You seem to think that there is only one form of radiometric dating...when in fact, there are multiple types of radiometric dating, with multiple methods of extracting answers.

Not only that, there are other, non-radiometric methods available that date within the past 100,000 years and give answers that agree with radiometric dating. Ice cores, varves, cosmic-ray exposure measurements are just a few. But don't just listen to me...check out this link by a scientist, who is also a devout Christian: Radiometric Dating

A worthy link.

[ThinkPlease]

And always in the background is the certain knowledge that funding follows results and only spectacular finds get rewarded. Nobody rewards you for finding 350 year old remains. How much better if you can find 35,000 year old remains.

I see it this way... The more the ICR peddles the same lies year in and year out, the more funding they can extract from the faithful sheep who have never learned to think for themselves, while making them think that they are the poor renegades touting the "truth". How much better if you can be the one to get the Bible taught in science classes? Think of the prestige and ministry income then!

[FourtySeven]

Project for tonight: Take a look at the Institute for Creationist Research's website, and see what "evidence" they have.

(already, the review about C14 is unconvincing...but just for kicks, I'll take a look at all of it...I'm more curious to see if all of their papers are written as poorly as this)

[Diamond]

All that means is that, in addition to the atmospheric source, there is a mechanism for producing very low levels of 14C within the earth - likely irradiation by exogenous radioactive sources.

[snip]..."As for the contamination issue, someone asserted that any C14 date of 30,000 years or more is due to contamination. If this is so, then why do they say the method is accurate to 50,000 years? If any C14 date has ever yielded a value over 30,000 years, this implies that such contamination is not ubiquitous. Of course, it could be that older measurement techniques were less accurate. Now, 30,000 years is about 5 half lives of C14, which means that a contamination of 1/32 (slightly less) would be required to achieve this date for a sample of infinite age. This is a substantial contamination.

Anyway, as for C14 dating in general, it seems clear that many, many results are much too young according to the standard view, and that explaining away one or two of them does not appreciably diminish the problem.

Here is another instance of an anomalously young carbon 14 date:

At the 1992 Twin Cities Creation Conference, there was a paper presented called “Direct Dating of Cretaceous-Jurassic Fossils (and Other Evidences for Human-Dinosaur Coexistence)”. Among other things, the results of carbon-dating of Acrocanthosaurus bones are given.

The authors noted that dinosaur bones are frequently (“as a rule”) found with a black carbon residue of some sort on the bones. The authors speculated that this residue could be the leftovers of the decayed skin and flesh: they quote the Penguin Geology Encyclopedia’s definition of “carbonization”: “Carbonization; the reduction of organic tissue to a carbon residue. An unusual kind of fossilization in which the tissue is preserved as a carbon film. Plants are commonly preserved in this manner, soft-bodied animals more rarely.” Since this material is organic, it can be used to carbon-date the fossils.

The authors describe in detail the measures taken to ensure that no other source of carbon contamination was present inside or outside the bones. When the bones were ground up and carbon-dated, the dates they received from the lab from different methods were 9,890 to 36,500 years BP (before present)." source

[ZULU]

"Radio Carbon dating is notoriously inaccurate"

There are some problems with radio carbon dating, but these can be corrected for. In general, its a reliable system if used right. They also use Potassium-Argon dating, tree ring width patterns and stratigraphy. Modern paleontology and archaeology has reached the level of forensic science.

And NOBODY changes dates to fit any preconceived ideas. That's preposterous.

"as they would be from pre-flood time."

I didn't know anyone had identified the date of Noah's flood or exactly where it occured.

[DannyTN]

I'm aware of other radiometric methods. But they all have rely on assumptions about starting amounts of elements which make them subject to error.

Problems with Potassium-Argon dating are well known. Argon doesn't always boil which is the assumption that is made. 16 different recent volcanic flows were dated as millions of years old.

Here is a link showing similar problems with the Rubidium-Strontium dating method. Where one set of rocks are dated much older than they are known to be.

More Dating problems

Whether such problems have been identified in all radiometric dating methods, I do not know. But it certainly casts significant doubt on it.

[ZULU]

You are right. There are minor problems with carbon 14 dating like changes in radioactive material in the atmosphere over time, or even bioplastic contaminants, but these can be corrected for.

When they are, its fairly accurate. Its generally given in + or - a certain number of years.

They also used thermoluminesce and potassium - argon dating
in addition to dendrochronology.

[ZULU]

"these particular people had evolved from bacteria brought to earth from Mars "

There is absolutely no proof for extra-terrestrial origins of life.

Even if there were, it would have had to have started somewhere somehow.

[DannyTN]

boil should be "boil off"

[ZULU]

They may have been burials, or they may have been victims of a predator like a lion, hyaena, or another human being.

[Just mythoughts]

To many maybes to be called evidence. I will wait for the art work.

[ZULU]

"The Bible, by contrast, paints a radically different picture of our planet's history. In particular, it describes a time when God catastrophically destroyed the earth and essentially all its life. The only consistent way to interpret the geological record in light of this event is to understand that fossil-bearing rocks are the result of a massive global Flood that occurred only a few thousand years ago and lasted but a year. This Biblical interpretation of the rock record implies that the animals and plants preserved as fossils were all contemporaries. This means trilobites, dinosaurs, and mammals all dwelled on the planet simultaneously, and they perished together in this world-destroying cataclysm. "


There is absolutley no evidence to support his contention that modern animals existed in the remote geological past. There is, further, no evidence that anything in the Bible substantially contradicts the modern theory of evolution.
By the time I got to the carbon 14 material I was suffering from acute mental distress and could no longer continue. Thsi site is proof that just about anyone can set a website and state just about anything they choose.

That's fine - its a free country. But that doesn't mean an intelligent, unbiased person has to believe it.

[lentulusgracchus]

Creationist fraud alert.

[B.Bumbleberry]

Utter nonsense. Carbon dating is only good to about 50,000 YBP, a time period which hardly has any relevance to the issue of evolution. I haven't read the article, but I don't need to to know that any discussion of carbon dating in the context of evolutionary theories is a complete strawman.

[DannyTN]

"Carbon dating is only good to about 50,000 YBP, a time period which hardly has any relevance to the issue of evolution. "

Because after 50,000 years there should be any Carbon 14 left. But if you had read the article you would have learned that many of the fossils that have been dated as very old, have significant amounts of Carbon 14 which shouldn't be there. Often 100 times more than should occur based on known sources of comtamination.

[B.Bumbleberry]

Potassium-argon I thought was only good to no later than about 200,000 years, after which the amount of potassium becomes unmeasureable. So it could hardly be used to calibrate carbon dates if that is true. That is why there has always been a struggle to date things between the latest dates of K/A and the earliest dates given by C. Thermoluminescence has been one technique to fill the gap, but I don't have a good understanding of that fairly recent technique. But it is an indirect dating technique, which would make it less desirable than carbon.

[B.Bumbleberry]

Right, and pigs fly. Bogus science.

[B.Bumbleberry]

Right, and pigs fly. Bogus science.