Experts doubt Clovis people were first in Americas

yahoo...Reuters ^ | Feb 22 | Will Dunham

[Renfield]

But there isn't a record of there being OTHER seafaring peoples that brave!

Actually, there IS such a record. See if you can find the old episode of NOVA (from about 10 years ago) about the Lost Red Paint People. There was a pan-Atlantic seafaring culture during the Neolithic period, that extended from Malta, in the Mediterranean, to Newfoundland and Labrador, on the coast of Canada.

[ElkGroveDan]

It's not just the Christian sciences saying this- secular does as well

I like the way you break scientists up along religious lines, which is just plain silly. You might as well create a battle between left handed and right handed scientists, for all it has to do with issues like this.

What about the vast majority of scientists who ARE Christian and who do accept the long ago proven and tested science behind radio carbon dating?

[CottShop]

I'm not breaking anything up elk- it's not along any line other than true and not true. The problems with dating methods are well documented, and only the dogmatic deny there are problems while the honest on both sides admit the problems instead of running from them- that is true science-

C-14 isn't reliable beyond 4000 +/- years, yet somehow, we're handed dates that range in the millions of years and told 'it is now known for a fact that so and so lived *** years ago as shown by radiocarbon dating" - they throw dates at us as though they are established facts when they themselves know darn well the problems with their dating methods-

Old earth creationists are welcome to their OPINION, but that's all it is- in order to form these opinions however, they need to ignore the problems of the dating methods, and rely on faith every bit as much as any religion.

[proven and tested science behind radio carbon dating] I think if you'll look more objectively into the situation, you will find many problems- it's far from proven as tests have shown. C-14 dating relies on assumptions and correction factors based on guestimates.

First off you need to assume there were constants in atmospheric radiation-

then you had to assujme there was a constant mix of nitrogen,

then assume there was constant rate of conversion of C-14 to carbon dioxide,

then assume constant dispersion rate,

then assume that C-14 was equally available in to all creatures at the same rate all over the planet,

then assume constant entropy over these time periods, on and on it goes- lot's of variables, lots of unknowns.

Now, small changes in c-14 amount ot large changes globally- we know that carbon 14 has been steadily changing for some time now, however, what we don't know is whther ort not this has been a constant change, or if it's been altered over time. As I said previously, folks claim C-14 dating shows million year old fossils/geology, yet as mentioend this is a lie. C-14 would be completely missing due to the degredation rate of C-14 in million year old specimens.

You could argue that fossils get contaminated from outside sources and would therefore show some C-14- but that would be an admission that you're not sure if the fossil being studied actually has some C-14 left to be tested, or if some other source contributed to hte readings findings.

As to your question earlier about the 50,000 date range, known correction factors ar4e used to convert radiocarbon years to calendar years, which work for up to 5,000 years or so. But dates for older than 5,000 years are unknown because they rely on correction factors of unknowns. There is no historical measures to calibrate from, so assumptions and guestimates must be used.

Evolutioniosts claim there wwere massive volcanic activities throughout the age, and if so, then the ratio of C-12 to C-14 would have decreased on a massive scale.

Any time there are evidences for C-14 in maTErials that there shouldn't be, the old 'it got contaminated' assumption comes into play in order to brush aside the evidence.- which is what Coyote did in a previous thread that he claims he 'rebuttled'. I find it funny that 'contamination' always comes into play when the eivdences oppose the old age model, yet, no such assumptions are ever made when it comes to dating ages younger than 5000 years which would suggest C-14 dating is accurate. It appears that when it suits the evolutionsit, there is no such thing as contamination, and the C-14 model is precise, yet when the evidences suggest young ages for supposedly old age material, well then- the C-14 model becomes 'too buggy' and open to 'contaminations' which can throw the readings off.

[Coyoteman]

C-14 isn't reliable beyond 4000 +/- years...

False. By way of cross-checking with items of known age, such as tree-rings, the method has been accurately calibrated back over 12,000 years. Glacial varves and other methods have taken the calibration curve back some 26,000 years. They are working on the rest of the useful range.

yet somehow, we're handed dates that range in the millions of years and told 'it is now known for a fact that so and so lived *** years ago as shown by radiocarbon dating" - they throw dates at us as though they are established facts when they themselves know darn well the problems with their dating methods-

False. Everybody but you knows that the range of the radiocarbon method only extends back some 50,000 or so years.

Old earth creationists are welcome to their OPINION, but that's all it is- in order to form these opinions however, they need to ignore the problems of the dating methods, and rely on faith every bit as much as any religion.

False. Old earth is based on data, not faith. It is young earth that is based on faith.

I think if you'll look more objectively into the situation, you will find many problems- it's far from proven as tests have shown. C-14 dating relies on assumptions and correction factors based on guestimates.

False. The calibration factors (called the calibration curve) is based on measurements. For example, you count back a few thousand tree-rings, then radiocarbon date that one ring. Do this for several thousand rings, and (with C13 and other necessary corrections) you can calibrate the measured radiocarbon to calendar age.

First off you need to assume there were constants in atmospheric radiation-

False. We know there were fluctuations in the atmospheric constant. That was shown by de Vries in 1958. That is why the calibrations curves have been worked out.

then you had to assujme there was a constant mix of nitrogen,

I don't think this has any bearing on the matter.

then assume there was constant rate of conversion of C-14 to carbon dioxide,

False. The C14 is in everything that contains carbon, not just carbon dioxide.

then assume constant dispersion rate,

That can be checked, and has been checked.

then assume that C-14 was equally available in to all creatures at the same rate all over the planet,

That too can be checked, and has been checked.

then assume constant entropy over these time periods, on and on it goes- lot's of variables, lots of unknowns.

Constant entropy? What's that?

Now, small changes in c-14 amount ot large changes globally- we know that carbon 14 has been steadily changing for some time now, however, what we don't know is whther ort not this has been a constant change, or if it's been altered over time.

That is why the radiocarbon method relies on calibrations. That lets us look back in time and determine the atmospheric concentrations.

As I said previously, folks claim C-14 dating shows million year old fossils/geology, yet as mentioend this is a lie. C-14 would be completely missing due to the degredation rate of C-14 in million year old specimens.

And you looked pretty silly then. Again, radiocarbon only extends back some 50,000 years. If you want to date dinosaurs, you need other methods. The "they found C14 in dinosaur bones fluff" has been easily discredited. Contamination and low level radioactivity in soils and rocks both can add fresh C14.

You could argue that fossils get contaminated from outside sources and would therefore show some C-14- but that would be an admission that you're not sure if the fossil being studied actually has some C-14 left to be tested, or if some other source contributed to hte readings findings.

Fossils are dated with other dating methods, not radiocarbon.

As to your question earlier about the 50,000 date range, known correction factors ar4e used to convert radiocarbon years to calendar years, which work for up to 5,000 years or so. But dates for older than 5,000 years are unknown because they rely on correction factors of unknowns. There is no historical measures to calibrate from, so assumptions and guestimates must be used.

False. The bristlecone pine sequence of tree-ring dating extends past 12,000 years. It is not based on unknowns, but individually counted tree-rings.

Evolutioniosts claim there wwere massive volcanic activities throughout the age, and if so, then the ratio of C-12 to C-14 would have decreased on a massive scale.

More likely on a smaller scale, and one which is corrected for by the calibration curve.

Any time there are evidences for C-14 in maTErials that there shouldn't be, the old 'it got contaminated' assumption comes into play in order to brush aside the evidence.- which is what Coyote did in a previous thread that he claims he 'rebuttled'. I find it funny that 'contamination' always comes into play when the eivdences oppose the old age model, yet, no such assumptions are ever made when it comes to dating ages younger than 5000 years which would suggest C-14 dating is accurate. It appears that when it suits the evolutionsit, there is no such thing as contamination, and the C-14 model is precise, yet when the evidences suggest young ages for supposedly old age material, well then- the C-14 model becomes 'too buggy' and open to 'contaminations' which can throw the readings off.

False again. Do you have any idea of how little C14 it takes to get a reading in the 50,000 year range? That's why the method only goes back that far--the amounts of C14 left disappear into the background radiation (the newer AMS method improves the accuracy in this area). That means that the tiniest amounts can introduce contamination, and give readings in that range.

You have proved that you know nothing about radiocarbon dating. You have proved that in this field, you are not worth listening to. Why do you keep pushing the same old discredited nonsense?

[CottShop]

[False. By way of cross-checking with items of known age, such as tree-rings, the method has been accurately calibrated back over 12,000 years. Glacial varves and other methods have taken the calibration curve back some 26,000 years. They are working on the rest of the useful range.]

False- as I've listed SEVERAL times now- which you conveniently ignore, these 'calibration techniques' are NOT reliable and MUST be taken on FAITH

[False. Everybody but you knows that the range of the radiocarbon method only extends back some 50,000 or so years.]

Sorry- that's false- We're CONSTANTLY told that dates reach into the millions of years- pick up your local national geographic for evidence of this.

[False. Old earth is based on data, not faith. It is young earth that is based on faith.]

False- Old earth advocates have NOTHING anywhere near reliable enough to come anywhere close to an age fact. As such- they take on faith that the age is old- Deny htis if you like- but you're plain wrong.

[False. The calibration factors (called the calibration curve) is based on measurements. For example, you count back a few thousand tree-rings, then radiocarbon date that one ring. Do this for several thousand rings, and (with C13 and other necessary corrections) you can calibrate the measured radiocarbon to calendar age.]

False- as already explained to you- but apparently not grasped- there MUST be assumptions made about constants in atmospheric conditions/radiation/uniformitarian conditions in order for this method to be viable- Assumptions assumptions assumptiuons- ALL FaITH!

[False. We know there were fluctuations in the atmospheric constant. That was shown by de Vries in 1958. That is why the calibrations curves have been worked out.]

Mmm yes, the evolutionst says the curve is correct- therefore it must be- the link I gave shows why this is false.

[False. The C14 is in everything that contains carbon, not just carbon dioxide.]

Noone said it was, it does however cause the scientist to assume that all specimens accumulated constant amounts in equal proportions over the whole earth- otherwise, a universal model can not be used.

[That can be checked, and has been checked.]

Yep- they got in their little time machines and went back and checked everything to make sure- gotcha!

[That too can be checked, and has been checked]

Yup- has been and assumptions were made in order for the model to work out- in other words- fitting the evidences to fit the model.

[That is why the radiocarbon method relies on calibrations. That lets us look back in time and determine the atmospheric concentrations.]

What a load of dung- they 'look back' in time using PRESENT decay rates as the measuring sticks with wich to measure by-Assumptions assumptions assumptions! Using ice core samples for 'calibration ideals' with wich to measure by? Give me a break- it is well known that you can not take samples out of ice cores without altering them due to pressure changes and faulty extraction techniques. Please-

[Contamination and low level radioactivity in soils and rocks both can add fresh C14]

Mighty big assumption- all bone fossils containing C-14 must have been 'contaminated' huh?

[False. The bristlecone pine sequence of tree-ring dating extends past 12,000 years. It is not based on unknowns, but individually counted tree-rings.]

Ah- on counted tree rings- yup- and they of course knew which years there were two rings produced seeings how they were present during htose times- right- gotcha!

[Why do you keep pushing the same old discredited nonsense?]

Why? Because yuou keep throwing out the fact that science MUST rely on ASSUMPTIONS and opinion and claim it is factual when it is not- not even close- you have proven an extreme bias and shown your lust for ad hominen attacks in order to deflect facts that show your science is every bit as much faith as any religion when it comes to certain matters such as dating and the evolution models.

[Coyoteman]

Hey, this is fun!

I post solid science and you come back with discredited creationist nonsense. The lurkers will be able to judge which is more accurate.

Want to go another round?

[CottShop]

discreditted? Yeah-0 sure it is coyote- you keep believing the assumptions in science are 'sound science' - Care to address the tree ring duplications in abundant years, and the aneamic rings in bad years for the 'tree ring calibration' techiniques? Care to show how science jumped in a tiem machine and went back in time to calibrate their 'curve' which they convenienty add a 'wiggle' to whenever evidences don't support their curve dogma? Care to venture a difinitive statement as to the accuracy of ice core samples being untarnished? Please do- I've a few secular scientists I'd like you to become familiar with if you want to explore that terroritory.

[Coyoteman]

discreditted? Yeah-0 sure it is coyote- you keep believing the assumptions in science are 'sound science' -

The only folks who are still debating these assumptions are doing so for religious, not scientific, reasons.

Much of the debate over the radiocarbon method has taken place in the journal Radiocarbon. You are invited to check out the level and the quality of the science being done in that journal, and what the science behind the assumptions actually is. Back issues are on-line for your perusal.

Care to address the tree ring duplications in abundant years, and the aneamic rings in bad years for the 'tree ring calibration' techiniques?

The tree-rings being used are the bristlecone pines, which grow in the White Mountains of southern California. In that environment, they are not so susceptible to multiple rings or lack of rings in the same year. But, don't you think scientists are bright enough to think of these things? There are ways of checking the accuracy of the tree-ring count. We have a number of recorded events with accurate historical dates--mostly volcanoes--which can be checked against the tree rings. This has confirmed the accuracy of the method during the historical era. There is no reason to think that the method does not extend to the prehistoric era.

I think your problem is that you just can't abide the results of radiocarbon dating. You don't seem to care enough about science in general, and this dating method in particular, to even learn the basics. But you have to oppose it because it disagrees with your religious belief. Fine, but don't try to call what you are doing science. It is apologetics (defense of religion).

Care to show how science jumped in a tiem machine and went back in time to calibrate their 'curve' which they convenienty add a 'wiggle' to whenever evidences don't support their curve dogma?

The curve is based on the tree-rings, which are then dated using the radiocarbon method. The difference between the conventional age and the tree-ring allows creation of a calibration curve. This compensates for atmospheric variation and produces pretty accurate dates. If there is a wiggle in the tree-ring dates, it is incorporated into the calibration curve, which I believe has been done in 10-year increments to about 12,400 years.

Care to venture a difinitive statement as to the accuracy of ice core samples being untarnished? Please do-

Sorry, I don't know anything about ice cores.

I've a few secular scientists I'd like you to become familiar with if you want to explore that terroritory.

Why don't you bring on the scientists, secular and otherwise, who deal with radiocarbon dating? That is what our debate is about.

Oh, and by the way, you repeated your mistake that radiocarbon dating is used to date things millions of years old (post #85). That is a very silly mistake, which I have corrected for you several times already. Radiocarbon dates go back about 50,000 years. Other forms of radiometric dating, using different isotopes, can extend much farther into the past.

This is an example of your lack of knowledge and your lack of willingness to learn even the basics of that which you are arguing against. You cut and paste from creationist websites without learning what the actual facts are, hence you fall victim to the simplest mistakes.

You must realize that it makes you look foolish, and that it detracts greatly from the credibility folks will accord to your arguments. (Your lack of care with spelling, grammar, and sentence construction don't help either.)

For the lurkers--I posted a series of good links on the radiocarbon dating method in Post #58 upthread.

[dread78645]

Unknown secular scientists placemark

[Ptarmigan]

I tend to think the first Americans came around 50,000 years ago.

[CottShop]

[Oh, and by the way, you repeated your mistake that radiocarbon dating is used to date things millions of years old (post #85). That is a very silly mistake,]

It's not my mistake coyote- we're told all the time by folks who should know better that it's millions of years old and dated by radiocarbon- You and I both know that can't be- but major sources and heck even institutions all claim that lie. It's very silly of you to assume I was making those claims- I'm not- simply telling you what we're told in the media and in major publications touting evolution. But as you say, it's quite silly indeed- major evolution productions relying on lies and deceits to try to hammer home their agenda/beleif/religion.

[The tree-rings being used are the bristlecone pines, which grow in the White Mountains of southern California. In that environment, they are not so susceptible to multiple rings or lack of rings in the same year]

Yep- I know which pines they are and they absolutely are susceptible to multiple rings- more so infacvt than other tree species.

[This has confirmed the accuracy of the method during the historical era. There is no reason to think that the method does not extend to the prehistoric era.]

Sorry- using assumptions again - faith faith faith.

[I think your problem is that you just can't abide the results of radiocarbon dating.]

Bzzzt wrong answer- I most certainly can and do- however, once the dates go outside their limits, then it's nothign but assumptions and speculations- and sorry- but that aint science- no matter how much you think it is- it's faith and dogma pure and simple!

[This compensates for atmospheric variation and produces pretty accurate dates.]

No sorry- it's not 'pretty accurate' as explained previously

[Why don't you bring on the scientists, secular and otherwise, who deal with radiocarbon dating? That is what our debate is about.]

Exactly which is why I'll bring the scientists that deal with the issues used for calibrating the 'curve' and show why the ice core samples can NOT be counted on as being accurate and why therefore the curve is nothign but assumptions.

[You must realize that it makes you look foolish, and that it detracts greatly from the credibility folks will accord to your arguments.]

Lol- yep- you've not addressed any of the issues brought up except to say '-uh uh- my scientists are right'

[There are ways of checking the accuracy of the tree-ring count.]

Ah yes, the time travel machine again- oops forgot- you got me there.

[Other forms of radiometric dating, using different isotopes, can extend much farther into the past.]

Ah yes, where the assumptions and variables become even more severe- Sorry- but I've read the radiocarbon site and I've also read the sites that show why the assumptions MUST be made- many assumptions- NOT based on science but on fitting the evidences to the model- It's too late tonight, but I'll be more than happy to bring out more tomorrow

[The curve is based on the tree-rings, which are then dated using the radiocarbon method.]

Glad you brought this up, because it all boils down to circular 'reasoning' of assembling a tiem line based on assumptions, then using that assumption based timeline to try to bolster more assumptions about carbon dating- the more assumptions., the weaker the model gets.

[si tacuissem]

It's not my mistake coyote- we're told all the time by folks who should know better that it's millions of years old and dated by radiocarbon- You and I both know that can't be- but major sources and heck even institutions all claim that lie

Could you prepare some links for "major sources" which claim that lie?

[uglybiker]

I was thinking more of Clovis, California.

I was thinking of the Ledbetters.

Odell, Eunell, Raynell, Lynell, Claudell, Marcell, Claude, Eugene, and Clovis!

[Steve Van Doorn]

i am not one that buys this stuff but check this out:
http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page

[si tacuissem]

Thanks for the link... But I asked CottShop explicitly for a major, i.e. scientific source, or the website of a science institute which misstates the radiocarbon dating method, as he had claimed:

It's not my mistake coyote- we're told all the time by folks who should know better that it's millions of years old and dated by radiocarbon- You and I both know that can't be- but major sources and heck even institutions all claim that lie

[SunkenCiv]

...Traditionally, the Clovis culture has been said to date from 11,500 to 10,900 years ago, but a comprehensive and critical review of the radiocarbon dates for Clovis in the Feb. 23 issue of the journal Science has narrowed the range to 11,050 to 10,800 years ago. Michael Waters, director of the Center for the Study of the First Americans, and Thomas Stafford, director of Stafford Research Laboratories, argue that "in as few as 200 calendar years, Clovis technology originated and spread throughout North America." ...[T]he sudden appearance of Clovis technology no longer can be linked to the original discoverers of America... The nearly simultaneous appearance of Clovis points across North America, coupled with the evidence for pre-Clovis cultures, suggests that it was the idea of making Clovis points that spread through groups of people who already had settled much of the continent... -- Bradley T. Lepper

[PeterNJones]

You are correct, the Clovis people were not a people, but rather a technology that was used by early American Indians. Further, these were not the first American Indians in the Americas. The old Clovis-First theory is dead. There is plenty of genetic evidence to support an earlier peopling of the Americas, and finally sites such as Cactus Hill and especially Gault in Texas bring archaeological evidence. For info on the genetic end I recommend my book American Indian mtDNA, Y Chromosome Genetic Data, and the Peopling of North America.

[SunkenCiv]

Welcome to FR.

[blam]

Welcome to FR.

This book was published in 2002. Why aren't there any book reviews at Amazon?

[jas3]

It's not my mistake coyote- we're told all the time by folks who should know better that...

The use of the passive voice is the last refuge of those who have been logically defeated.

"It is said that..."

"I was told that..."

"We are told that..."

etc.

The passive voice obviates the need to identify the actor in the statement. This party is hidden because were he actually identified the argument would fall apart:

"Captain Kangaroo said that...."

"My friend told me that...."

"The New York Times wrote that..."

Captain Kangaroo, your friend, and The New York Times are generally not authoritative on matters of science.

jas3

p.s. What problems do you have with radiocarbon dating 4,001 years ago that you accept as fact 3,999 years ago?