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

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

[vessel]

Please don't miss my point. There is nothing goofy about an ocean of water on Mars, but where it is now if there is the same gravitational force now as when it was there causes me to wonder.

Also, how high were the mountains and how deep were the oceans on this planet before the flood and would a sudden water bath cause buckling and subsequent cooling and icing.

Could an asteroid impact have caused a firestorm, and volcanic eruptions, and spewing tons of ash (condensation nuclei) high into a previously pristine envelope of water.
Then as the rain fell through the smoke clouds as acid rain it could dissolve the shells and bones of previously living low C-14 crustaceans forming a slurry of calcium-carbonate to fill the soon to be vacated holes we now call fossils?

[ASA Vet]

Yeh, silly me. There I go looking a practical reason for actions.

10,000 years from now anthropologists will declare that
all these pc computer terminal things were idols.
Our 5 cell MagLights will become phallic symbols.

[VadeRetro]

Between ICR's finding and the evolutionists response that contamination is common, it certainly undermines much of the credibiliity of carbon dating.

Carbon dating is not used to date rocks. That's the first obvious intentional "mistake" by these charlatans. Carbon decay has exactly the expected curve, nor is the non-zero detection floor a surprise given the mobility of dissolved carbon dioxide (carbonic acid) in ground water. To misrepresent this as unexpected or meaning that the rocks are not old is another one of those little dishonest "mistakes." Then, recall that all these things have been pointed out to you before, but you're happy to ignore that and come back trolling for suckers with the same talking points on thread after thread. Classic Holy Warrior Syndrome, ICR and you.

[VadeRetro]

Because after 50,000 years there should be any Carbon 14 left.

But you have been told why there's carbon there. I've been on several threads before with you. I know you've been told repeatedly. Creationist amnesia amounts to lying.

[DannyTN]

"I've been on several threads before with you. I know you've been told repeatedly. Creationist amnesia amounts to lying.

You have been on several threads with me. I'm not sure if you ever told me why there is carbon there. What TalkOrigins says is that it is either from radiation sources which it admits is unlikely to generate that amount or from biological sources which generates Carbon 13 unless it has air contact. TalkOrigins says research is ongoing.

What the link I provided says is that evolutionist researchers have so far been unable to quantify a source of contamination anywhere close to the amount of Carbon 14 that is there.

So if you have told me, please tell me again. Because I don't see an answer yet.

[DannyTN]

Who mentioned dating rocks? We are talking about carbon in dating fossils, not rocks. Why do yall keep bringing up rocks and trying to disrail the conversation?

Here is the Talk Origins explanation that offers some theories on contamination and says research is ongoing.

It doesn't mention anything about groundwater contamination.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html

[VadeRetro]

So if you have told me, please tell me again. Because I don't see an answer yet.

Here, for the lurkers, an illustration of ground water moving in layer upon layer of sediment, even when some layers are not directly permeable.

From this site, note the following table:

FIGURE 4. Movement of water producing the seepage
within the Purslane sandstones.

Ground water contains dissolved carbon dioxide from the air. Read all about it.

If ICR had "measured the age" of the rocks in this mountain using the techniques they advertise, they would have gleefully announced a value equal to the "age" (time since exposure to the atmosphere) of the water seeping therein. This would result in a value much younger than the 330-345 million years obtainable by more defensible means.

I hope this will help you not to "forget" anymore.

[VadeRetro]

I hadn't seen that paper and don't know why they aren't considering the more obvious point of contamination. All you're trying to account for is a non-zero (but not very big) noise floor into which the expected decay curve disappears.

[VadeRetro]

I notice elsewhere they do consider atmospheric contamination, and that this was linked to you on this thread back in reply 26. Doesn't bode well for you not showing up back again dumb as a stump next time, right?

[DannyTN]

"All you're trying to account for is a non-zero (but not very big) noise floor into which the expected decay curve disappears."

Not according to the orignal link. The original link said that the amount of carbon 14 in the fossils was 100 times larger than what the evolutionist scientists could account for from known sources of contamination. That doesn't sound like floor level to me.

[DannyTN]

Yes and if you notice my response, it was to the effect that if it's that easily contaminated then how can we rely on it at all?

You are trying to have it both ways. Evolutionists have used carbon dating to date fossils, but with Creation Scientists use the same techniques on fossils that were supposedly to old for carbon dating, they found significant levels of Carbon 14.

That leaves three possibilities:

• The "supposedly" super old fossils aren't really that old.
• The fossils were contaminated by a source that nobody seems to be able to quantify.
• The fossils were contaminated by Carbon 14 from either groundwater or atmosphere as you contend. But if fossils are that easily contaminated, why should we believe any of the dates arrived at by carbon 14 dating. Wouldn't the same contamination sources likely affect all fossils?

  Evolutionists expect us to accept carbon dating when it supports their theories and yet call us intellectually dishonest when the same technique casts a question on their claims. Who is really dishonest here?

[VadeRetro]

Yes and if you notice my response, it was to the effect that if it's that easily contaminated then how can we rely on it at all?

We do not in fact rely on C14 dating to date very old organic traces or any sort of mineralized/fossilized matter which has been subject to physical/chemical replacement. We mostly use it to date items suspected to have been alive within the last 50,000 years (recently extended to close to 100,000).

I have also mentioned to you in I don't know how many times now that C14 exhibits exactly the expected decay curve down to the noise floor, which allows it to be perfectly useful in the areas where it makes sense to use it. That is, I have repeatedly anticipated the point you just tried to make. It never does any good to do anticipate you except that it allows one to point out as I do now that you just robotically go ahead with your canned talking points anyway.

Why don't you just admit you cruise for converts, routinely ignore all counter-arguments, and don't give a rat's butt about science? If you cared about science at all you'd be getting it from something besides ICR propaganda and Jack Chick tracts.

[Arthalion]

It's possible that bodies were buried simply to cover the smell, but unlikely for two reasons. First, grave goods like axes, spears, and slings would have been very valuable to the members of a persons village/clan/tribe, and wouldn't have been left in a burial site by accident. This strongly indicates that those goods were left for the dead person (indicating religion) or were left because they were somehow "cursed" by the fact that their owner had died (indicating superstition, and therefore religion).

You have a second issue in that the people existing 35,000 years ago were strictly hunter-gatherers and probably didn't stick around in any area for an extended period of time. If someone died and started smelling, they simply would have moved on to newer territory. Digging a hole, lining it with stones, and burying the dead is a depressing, energy consuming, time consuming, and potentially injurious task that would have ONLY been done if the people performing the burials considered it absolutely necessary. They obviously did, and nearly all of the possible reasons for those beliefs involve religion.

Humans are the only creatures on this planet that bury their dead, and we do so because of religion and respect for those who have passed. The fact that people buried their dead 35,000 years ago indicates to me that they had the same beliefs and respects, and therefore intelligence, as we do today.

[DannyTN]

We do not in fact rely on C14 dating to date very old organic traces or any sort of mineralized/fossilized matter which has been subject to physical/chemical replacement. We mostly use it to date items suspected to have been alive within the last 50,000 years (recently extended to close to 100,000).

I understand. So how do you tell if the item has been subject to physical/chemical replacement? You've suggested that such replacement is extremely common. And I assume if Carbon 14 can leach in, it can certainly leach out. It doesn't help to know Carbon 14 decays as expected if noone can be certain that the original carbon is intact.

You've convinced me that Carbon dating is useless.

[orionblamblam]

> A theory that there was a permanent heavy water vapor cover in the atmosphere, whose sudden condensation was a partial cause of the flood.

And that is jsut palin goofy. The atmosphere cannot support even a tiny fraction of that. Vessel suggests that there was so much water Up There that it effectively blocked cosmic radiation from entering the atmosphere... this is patently absurd.

> But certainly no more goofy than the one about us being multiple mutations to pond scum.

Huh. Never heard that theory... except from Creationists. *Never* hear it from evolutionsts, because it's not a good description of evolution.

[VadeRetro]

I and others have already answered you on that. (This is getting blatant!)

Carbon dating has been nicely and accurately calibrated for the kind of problems for which it makes sense. It can be subject to contamination because carbon is everywhere. It has a tiny fringe of noise floor at the bottom of its useful range. Most of these effects are insignificant for organic residues younger than 50K or so years.

I'm done repeating myself. You may go back to repeating yourself and I'll call you on it (maybe even link this discussion) when you show up back again dumb as a stump with the same talking points on another thread.

[orionblamblam]

> There is nothing goofy about an ocean of water on Mars, but where it is now if there is the same gravitational force now as when it was there causes me to wonder.

That's simple: Mars' gravity (more specifically, the plaentary escape velocity) is too low to retain water vapor. Some billions of years ago, Mars seems to have had oceans of water... but the water vapor, as on earth, entered the upper atmosphere. The root mean squared velocity of the water molecules was close to the escape velocity... so, essentially, the water slowly evaporated away. This was made possible by the fact that Mars is warm enough to have liquid water in abundance. In the outer Jovian moons, the temperatures are so low that the water is permanently frozen to ice, and thus the actual vapor pressure is vanishingly low, and the sublimation rate is miniscule.

> Also, how high were the mountains and how deep were the oceans on this planet before the flood

The Black Sea flood? Pretty much exactly as they are today.

> ...into a previously pristine envelope of water.

Please demonstrate how the effective equivalent of a 25,000 foot deap world-encompassing ocean of water can be suspended in the atmosphere. The Earth's atmosphere is already pretty much saturated. Maybe ten or twenty times more water can be suspended; but that is, quite literally, a drop in the bucket.

> forming a slurry of calcium-carbonate to fill the soon to be vacated holes we now call fossils?

Somehow separating the trilobites from the tyranosaurs and Homo Erecti? Silliness. Sillier than the goofiest New Agey Atlantis notions.

[DannyTN]

"The atmosphere cannot support even a tiny fraction of that."

ICR has done some extensive computer modeling on the idea. So far the problem they are running into is not the atmosphere supporting a canopy but rather the surface temperatures that result from a severe greenhouse effect. But they continue to work on it.

[DannyTN]

You haven't answered it! You just keep repeating the non answer that "Carbon dating works for problems for which it makes sense" without ever explaning the diffence between problems where it makes sense and problems where it doesn't.


And now you claim that "Most of these effects are insignificant for organic residues younger than 50K or so years. " So contamination isn't a problem.

Apparently you have to know that the specimen is less than 50,000 years old so that you can rule out contamination. Because if it's older than 50,000 years then contamination is a problem? That doesn't makes sense? You are assuming the result before you apply the test!!!

[libertylass]

I just had to agree with post #3 and add that UCLA must have sold of the rest of the body parts....