Posted on 02/23/2007 9:34:17 AM PST by george76
The Clovis people, known for their distinctive spear points, likely were not the first humans in the Americas, according to research placing their presence as more recent than previously believed.
Using advanced radiocarbon dating techniques, researchers writing in the journal Science on Thursday said the Clovis people, hunters of large Ice Age animals like mammoths and mastodons, dated from about 13,100 to 12,900 years ago.
That would make the Clovis culture, known from artifacts discovered at various sites including the town of Clovis, New Mexico, both younger and shorter-lived than previously thought. Previous estimates had dated the culture to about 13,600 years ago.
These people long had been seen as the first humans in the New World, but the new dates suggest their culture thrived at about the same time or after others also in the Americas.
Michael Waters, director of Texas A&M University's Center for the Study of the First Americans, called the research the final nail in the coffin of the so-called "Clovis first" theory of human origins in the New World.
Waters said he thinks the first people probably arrived in the Americas between 15,000 and 25,000 years ago.
"We've got to stop thinking about the peopling of the Americas as a singular event," Waters said in an interview.
"And we have to start now thinking about the peopling of the Americas as a process, with people coming over here, probably arriving at different times, maybe taking different routes and coming from different places in northeast Asia."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Well, let's think about it.
It's 1600 miles at the closest point between South America and Africa.
In the last Ice Age, that was about a sixth smaller due to more exposed continental shelf, so it was about 1250 miles apart.
Continental drift is only 1.5 centimeters per year, so even if humans originated in sub-Saharan Africa 100,000 years ago, the continents were less than a mile closer due to drift.
Assuming that the ocean currents were about the same, the North Equatorial Current goes East to West at a speed of about .5 miles per hour mid-ocean, accelerating to 6 miles per hour when close to the Brazilian shore. We can assume an average of 1 mile per hour across the whole length.
The trade winds blow west to east down there, at substantial rates of speed, but paleolithic man didn't have sails, and without sails even a 20 mile per hour wind won't blow a log at 20 miles per hour. In the days of the great ragwagons of old, a warship under full sail in the Horse Latitudes MIGHT get 4 knots with every inch of sail tied on.
If we are GENEROUS, a stiff breeze could have added a mile per hour of speed to a hollowed-out log making the crossing.
So, there's 2 miles per hour of natural way on, to get across 1250 miles of Ice Age ocean (it was still warm in the tropics, and food is possible to get sometimes, when you're that close to a warm ocean teeming with fish...assuming you know how to fish...).
Without paddling, that's a 650 hour crossing...about 26 days...less than a month...WITHOUT paddling.
But suppose you paddle?
Add 1 mile per hour for paddling, and assume that the boats are paddled half the time. That's a 500 hour passage...21 days...3 weeks.
It's possible.
I don't believe that stone age man could cross the GIUK Gap, although I haven't really looked at how close IT all was under the ice. I don't think stone age man could survive walking months and months on the ice pack, like Elves crossing the Helcaraxe. Though it's possible. Eskimos do it.
I do find something more than vaguely suspicious about the efforts to, for example, show that the Celts were the first settlers of New Zealand et al, don't have anything to do with really looking at what happened, and have a lot to do with racial and political beliefs.
If America was populated from the Old World not just by Asia, geographic proximity, currents, weather and warmth makes it probable that it was done by Africans from sub-Saharan Africa, and the unique coloration of American Indians is due to the mixture of the Asian and Black races.
I doubt it.
I expect that folks in America devised it completely independently of folks in France.
[I am always pleasantly amazed how time after time modern scientific methods including carbon dating, used on archaeological digs verify the accounts of the Bible and the dates and locations of civilizations and events mentioned in the Bible.]
ah but i have no problems with the accuracy (or at least semi accuracy) of the dating method up until about 4000 or so years ago- which I might point out are generally corroberated by accompanying evidences such as texts, known dates backed up by records etc. - beyond that though things get sketchy, and I have no problems not being able to pinpoint certain events beyond these times- As I mentioned, everythign beyond that is pretty much speculation and opinion. We know certain people and civilizations lived according to biblical recordings, and we can gustimate beyond the 4000 year limitations of carbon dating, but really, there's plenty of archeological and dating records to show the more recent events were factual, so there's really no need to doubt the earlier records that can't be dated with pinpoint accuracy of the bible either- no worries. There's enough archeological evidences to guestimate timelines fairly accurate for earlier recorded events and civilizations
LOL- I gave plenty of links showing the innacuracies of those links and dating methods you provided- The sites went into much details explaining the problems
[Most don't know anything about the science, but they just can't handle the results!]
Funny- you keep listing those innacurate methods as though they were factual and reliable
http://creationwiki.org/Geochronology
http://creationwiki.org/Radiometric_dating
Superposition
Not a valid dating method- too manyvariables must be taken into account- too many suppositions
http://www.fbinstitute.com/powell/evolutionexposed.htm
Stratigraphy
http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/publications/bulletins/135/home.html
Dendrochronology
Up to 10000 years tops
Radiometric Dating Methods
problems with radiometic
http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html
Obsidian Hydration Dating
Many obsidians are crowded with microlites and crystallines (gobulites and trichites), and these form fission-track-like etch pits following etching with hydrofluoric acid. The etch pits of the microlites and crystallines are difficult to separate from real fission tracks formed from the spontaneous decay of 238U, and accordingly, calculated ages based on counts including the microlite and crystalline etch pits are not reliable.”
http://trueorigin.org/dating.asp
http://www.scientifictheology.com/STH/Pent3.html
Paleomagnetic/Archaeomagnetic
Very little info on this method
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/tecto.htm
Luminescence Dating Methods
http://karst.planetresources.net/Kimberley_Culture.htm
Amino Acid Racemization
http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/amino/
Fission-track Dating
http://www.ao.jpn.org/kuroshio/86criticism.html
Ice Cores
Varves
At best- the two methods above are only accurate to about 11,000 years due to numerous conditions and environmental uncertainties
Pollens
Corals
Highly unreliable- you'd need constant temps to maintaIN reliable growth pattersn
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i1/coral_reef.asp
Cation Ratio
Fluorine Dating
http://www.present-truth.org/Creation/creation-not-evolution-13.htm
Patination
Known times only throuhg analysis of the patina
Oxidizable Carbon Ratio
Electron Spin Resonance
Cosmic-ray Exposure Dating
Closely related to the buggiest dating methods of Carbon dating
why it's wrong:
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#Carbon
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3059
RaDio helio dating disproves:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/369
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/
http://www.rae.org/
There's plenty more- but let's let the folks who are discussing the clovis' have their thread. This is an interesting topic despite the problems with dating methods.
Your understanding of radiocarbon dating is flawed by creationist propaganda.
There is no "4000 year limitation" -- that is a product religious apologists who feel they need to deny the findings of science in order to safeguard their religious beliefs.
The tree-ring calibration extends past 12,000 years in the western US and other calibration methods go much farther back in Europe. Your denial of these is no more than whistling past a graveyard.
Even worse, you have shown in various threads that you have no actual scientific knowledge or understanding of radiocarbon dating. You have never shown that you know the science, nor have you ever indicated that you have done any radiocarbon dating.
For you to pontificate on the science, including the limitations and accuracies, of the radiocarbon dating method is thus pointless. You have no knowledge of the subject to share with us.
You might as well regale us with your views on cosmology and string theory. Those tales will all have about the same usefulness, and the same scientific accuracy -- i.e., none.
didn't bother reading any of those links did you?
Tree ring dating methods are saubject to variables that pervert the dating methods as well as concentrations to throw off the dates-
As I said- everythign beyond the approximate 4000 dates for radiometric dating is guess work and assumptiosn as outlined clearly in those links provided-
'Other dating methods'? Which ones coyote? They all have problems and MUST rely on presumptions and opinion- don't be getting all high and mighty here with the petty insults- Shall I statethat the fact that you don't realize this, or admit this negates anythign you have to say on the subject as well? Shall I ridicule you for not understanding something fully yet pontificating as though you do regardless of the fact that you dismiss coutner-evidences?
[For you to pontificate on the science, including the limitations and accuracies, of the radiocarbon dating method is thus pointless. You have no knowledge of the subject to share with us.]
That's a load of crap- and you know it- I'm not pontificating- I am simply pointing you to the material which proves it's not accurate and it tells you why it's not- I've summarized, and pointed- so climb down off your little high horse- will ya?
you can get all pissy and dig in your heels and deny evidences agaisnt dating methods, and go after folks because someone points out the errors in dating methods that might shake your religion, but leave the personal insults out- address the facts- keep it mature. Science doesn't run from the facts just because they present problems, and doesn't attack the messenger, they address the problems presented if possible. Let's do the same here- bring it up a notch.
Where do you keep getting that figure? The process is accurate up to 50-60,000 years.
Are you saying you accept the readings that show things to be 3500 years old or 3800 years old but all of a sudden if something is shown to be 4100 years old the science behind the process suddenly becomes inaccurate? That's not how the laws of physics work.
They are similar but I think the problem lies in the dating. They are from different time periods.
But a very early European element in the North American Indian population isn't that far fetched in my opinion.
Despite popular belief, there was SIGNIFICANT difference anatomically between the many tribes in North and South America and an African element in South America isn't out of the question.
I don't think its fair to refer to these people as "ignorant savages". Nor are ALL tribes opposed to anthropolical research on human remains.
The restrictions on studying Indian remains were actually rooted in repugnant practises in the recent past involving nothing short of grave robbing or even worse - desecrating American Indian remains as soon as they died.
But trying to use that same argument with respect to someone who died several thousand years ago is foolish and typically politically correct.
I have read many creationist websites' articles on radiocarbon dating. I do not find them credible. I have posted many of the reasons to you on past threads, but you have ignored them. That you ignore them does not make them go away. The facts I have posted, and indeed, all of science, are there, whether you say yea or nay.
Tree ring dating methods are saubject to variables that pervert the dating methods as well as concentrations to throw off the dates-
That happens not to be the case.
As I said- everythign beyond the approximate 4000 dates for radiometric dating is guess work and assumptiosn as outlined clearly in those links provided-
That happens not to be the case.
'Other dating methods'? Which ones coyote?
Other calibration methods. Read for comprehension.
They all have problems and MUST rely on presumptions and opinion- don't be getting all high and mighty here with the petty insults- Shall I statethat the fact that you don't realize this, or admit this negates anythign you have to say on the subject as well? Shall I ridicule you for not understanding something fully yet pontificating as though you do regardless of the fact that you dismiss coutner-evidences?
Whatever. Knock yourself out.
[For you to pontificate on the science, including the limitations and accuracies, of the radiocarbon dating method is thus pointless. You have no knowledge of the subject to share with us.]
That's a load of crap- and you know it- I'm not pontificating- I am simply pointing you to the material which proves it's not accurate and it tells you why it's not- I've summarized, and pointed- so climb down off your little high horse- will ya?
You are citing, without any understanding, various creationist websites; you are trusting, without any knowledge on your part, that they are accurate. You are wrong on both counts.
You are not pointing out "material which proves it's not accurate and it tells you why it's not." You are pointing out creationist, apologetic, screeds which do not accurately portray scientific understanding of the radiocarbon dating method. And, you seem to be doing this because you don't know the field yourself, and because you desperately need the results to come out supporting a young earth. Sorry, science leads where it leads, whether young earth creationists say yea or nay.
You should just admit that your are arguing from a religious belief, and stop trying to pretend to do science.
What a load of utter crap coyote- NONE of your 'rebuttles' were valid except for one, and that one didn';t even address the facts lsited on the site but instead glommed onto one mistake on the site- ignoring the rest- it doesn't take too much to realize that all the dating methods are wonky- soemthign you've not addressed once except for an attempt to state that a site 'could be contaminated and thus throw off a reading that suggest younger dates'
[You are pointing out creationist, apologetic, screeds which do not accurately portray scientific understanding of the radiocarbon dating method. And, you seem to be doing this because you don't know the field yourself, and because you desperately need the results to come out supporting a young earth. ]
Bzzzt wrong- errors are errors- insulting others doesn't negate that fact- State emphatically dating methods are accurate- you can't because you know it isn't true- oh you'll say "dates getchanged all the time, and that's how science works- but that's crap too- the changed dates ALL rely on guesswork, assumptions and opinion and are NOT factual
Still waiting for the rebuttles to the links I've posted- & sorry, but attackign their character or beleif doesn't make the errors go away
it;'s well known figures (though some folks argue for slightly longer period) even secular scientist sites will tell you this
Look it up on a search engine. The range is 50,000 to 60,000 years.
[You are citing, without any understanding, various creationist websites; you are trusting, without any knowledge on your part, that they are accurate.]
Cut the crap- I've got enough knowledge to iunderstand the methods have problems and WHY they have problems- Being a radio-carbon dating expert doesn't make those problems go away- more knowledge in the field doesn't magically the fact that dates over 4000 years go wonky and that is because you or anyone else HAS to rely on assumptions abotu constants in the past in order for your models to work- while you claim 'concentrations' make young dates invalid, you apparently dismiss concentration from contamination from outside sources when the dates are older.
RATE has done extensive testing with C-14 nad has much to say on the subject, but all you can do is point to talkorigins in a half-hearted effort to try to dispute RATE'S findings- Yuo use out of date 'proofs' and don't EVER answer when they are proven wrong. You've also not answered those sites assetions that the Decay/production should have already reached a constant many millions of years ago if the earth is billions of years old.--
You can keep saying "You know nothing about it" all you like- but the fact is that you either don't know anything or you don't know enough to even refute the problems brought up
I explained why the range is 'adjusted' in previous post- It's not just the Christian sciences saying this- secular does as well- YES some folks will claim longer times but as I mentioend, a radio-carbon date isn't the same date as the age which gets adjusted to 'real time' (or whatever they call it) which is only around approximately 4000 years- find the conversions
Will these finding jeopardize the chances for the Clovis to get their own casino?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.