“How did those 15,000 year old toys get to 6000 year old Earth?
That is the real mystery!”
______________________________________________________
Exactly!
If they used “carbon dating”, that would mean the stone is “15,000 years old”, unless the people had a “use by” date stamped on the tool itself.
I guess the archaeologists get their jollies over things like this, but to me, it’s meaningless.
Exactly! If they used “carbon dating”, that would mean the stone is “15,000 years old”, unless the people had a “use by” date stamped on the tool itself. I guess the archaeologists get their jollies over things like this, but to me, it’s meaningless.
Quote from the article:
"From 19 optically stimulated luminescence dates of sediments, they determined the artifacts were between 13,500- and 15,500- years-old."
__________________
From Wikipedia...
Optically stimulated luminescence
In physics, optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) is a method for measuring doses from ionizing radiation. It is used in at least two applications:
luminescence dating of ancient materials: mainly geological sediments and sometimes fired pottery, bricks etc., although in the latter case thermoluminescence dating is used more often. ...”
Lots more:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optically_stimulated_luminescence
No, it has nothing to do with the age of the stone which is probably hundreds of thousands or millions of years old. Stone does not get carbon dated. It has to do with where it’s found and the items associated with it. The Clovis example was a Clovis point embedded in the rib bone of a prehistoric bison. The Bison bone could be dated. Archaic Stone points can only be dated by the organic things they are found in association with.