Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Alien helped build Puma Punku

page: 8
57
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 4 2010 @ 12:53 AM
link   
Puma Punku is a very interesting site. To me, if the age is over 10,000 years old, it rivals that of the Great Pyramids. Who would have thought that the most fascinating site in the world could be located in South America?

I don't think Aliens helped build the site though. I think it hints of a previous civilization that helped jump start the South and Central Americans. Both cultures speak of "white gods" who helped teach their civilization. Now if the site is over 10,000 years old i have a feeling these were the people from Atlantis. Either they helped before their continent was destroyed or right before it. If it was built before 10,000 years ago and it was the Atlantians that helped, i think the evidence of the continent being Antarctica being Atlantis would support the help of building Puma Punka greatly. If the atlanteans traveled North up Chile looking for hints of people settled in South America, maybe they traveled until they found a village around Puma Punka and stopped there to help those people.

If the site is not 10,000+ years old and is only a thousand or so years old, the help could be another white race, either the Knights Templar, the jews, phoenicians or some other people. The problem with coming up with who the white gods were that helped them is that we have no idea what period this was, especially the Mesoamericans.




posted on Oct, 31 2010 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by winston_boy
Carbon dating is based on some very dubious assumptions and mainstream science comes with its own agenda.

The former is certainly not true, but the latter, illustrative of any human endeavor, is an obvious statement of fact.


I know this thread is old but, since there was an experiment done that proves that the decay of radioactive materials is not a constant like we were taught to believe , does that not mean that carbon dating is well flawed and should not be relied on as absolute proof ?


Link to article about the radioactive materials decay experiment : www.physorg.com...
edit on 31/10/10 by Thill because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thill

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by winston_boy
Carbon dating is based on some very dubious assumptions and mainstream science comes with its own agenda.

The former is certainly not true, but the latter, illustrative of any human endeavor, is an obvious statement of fact.


I know this thread is old but, since there was an experiment done that proves that the decay of radioactive materials is not a constant like we were taught to believe , does that not mean that carbon dating is well flawed and should not be relied on as absolute proof ?


Link to article about the radioactive materials decay experiment : www.physorg.com...
edit on 31/10/10 by Thill because: (no reason given)


The cyclic variation is not enough to make carbon-14 dating so unreliable as to be useless. When geology measures changes in millions of years, what is important about a few thousand years discrepancy?



posted on Oct, 31 2010 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi

Originally posted by Thill

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by winston_boy
Carbon dating is based on some very dubious assumptions and mainstream science comes with its own agenda.

The former is certainly not true, but the latter, illustrative of any human endeavor, is an obvious statement of fact.


I know this thread is old but, since there was an experiment done that proves that the decay of radioactive materials is not a constant like we were taught to believe , does that not mean that carbon dating is well flawed and should not be relied on as absolute proof ?


Link to article about the radioactive materials decay experiment : www.physorg.com...
edit on 31/10/10 by Thill because: (no reason given)


The cyclic variation is not enough to make carbon-14 dating so unreliable as to be useless. When geology measures changes in millions of years, what is important about a few thousand years discrepancy?


The importance of this is that if one thing can affect the change in radiotope decay , who is to say that there is nothing else that can/is influencing the decay ? Just because we did not find it yet , does not mean it is not there. Remember we have been taught that the decay of radioactive materials is a constant and nothing can affect it , and now we see that this is not the case



posted on Oct, 31 2010 @ 08:27 PM
link   
I don't know what happened at Puma Puku but if illiterate farmers built this with Llama skin ropes and rollers I'll eat my shoes , farmers are hard pressed to do anything except farm there is no spare energy left for stacking lego stones to aggrandize an emperor or a God no how matter how much one needs rain

so there has to be an industry, trade and arts and schools and all that goes with a civilization ,

just as there is no proof that aliens built it there is no proof people built it I think it was the LLAMAS
they built it with human skin ropes!LOL!



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thill
The importance of this is that if one thing can affect the change in radiotope decay , who is to say that there is nothing else that can/is influencing the decay ? Just because we did not find it yet , does not mean it is not there. Remember we have been taught that the decay of radioactive materials is a constant and nothing can affect it , and now we see that this is not the case


Well, that might be what you were taught, but not the rest of us.

There is nothing constant about radioactive decay. There is everything constant about the ratio of decayed to undecayed isotopes.

The fact is, it's been known since before C14 dating was invented that the amount of available C14 is highly variable.

That's why C14 is never the only method used.

However, when other methods are used (like dendrochronology - tree ring counting), C14 comes out really close to the others.

Dendrochronology, among other methods, is used to calibrate C14 dates, which is why you'll find terms like the "carbon date" or the number of "carbon years" for artifacts that are dated this way.

Lastly, the effect you merntion concerning a change in decay rates would put C14 dates off at Pumapunku by a few weeks, at most.

Harte
edit on 11/1/2010 by Harte because: bolding messed up



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


Harte: Dendrochronology, among other methods, is used to calibrate C14 dates, which is why you'll find terms like the "carbon date" or the number of "carbon years" for artifacts that are dated this way.


SC: Dendrochronology, huh? Let's look at what the experts say:


“However, three or four rings formed in one year is not uncommon, especially if the tree grows on a slope, with the ground several times in a year turning wet and dry because of rapid outflow of water.” - Botanical Review, Glueck et al, 7, 649-713 & 21, 245-365

“Amazingly, using such t-value analysis, Yamaguchi found 113 different matches having a confidence level of greater than 99.9%. For example, Yamaguchi demonstrated that his log could cross-match with other tree-ring sequences to give t-values of around 5 at AD 1504 (for the low end of the ring age), 7 at AD 1647 and 4.5 at AD 1763. Six of these matches were non-overlapping. That means that this particular piece of wood could be dated to be any one of those six vastly different ages to within a 99.9% degree of confidence.” - Tree-Ring Bulletin, Interpretation of cross correlation between tree-ring series, 46:47-54, Yamaguchi DK.1986

“… the result is a system in which investigators can claim any plausible results and yet are accountable to no one… The central conclusion is clear: Anatolian tree-ring studies are very untrustworthy and the problems with the work should be plain to anyone who has familiarity with the field. This is a serious matter." - The Limehouse Cut, Anatolian tree-ring studies are untrustworthy, Douglas J. Keenan, 2004

"As a tree physiologist who has devoted his career to understanding how trees make wood, I have made sufficient observations on tree rings and cambial growth to know that dendrochronology is not at all an exact science. Indeed, its activities include subjective interpretations of what does and what does not constitute an annual ring, statistical manipulation of data to fulfill subjective expectations, and discarding of perfectly good data sets when they contradict other data sets that have already been accepted. Such massaging of data cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered science; it merely demonstrates a total lack of rigor attending so-called dendrochronology research . . . It would be a major step forward if dendrochronology could embrace the scientific method." - Letter to the Editor, New York Times, Rod A. Savidge, November 12, 2002


Need I say more?

As for C14 dating, I think these quotes sum up its problems quite concisely::


“Carbon dating is controversial for a couple of reasons. First of all, it's predicated upon a set of questionable assumptions. We have to assume, for example, that the rate of decay (that is, a 5,730 year half-life) has remained constant throughout the unobservable past. However, there is strong evidence which suggests that radioactive decay may have been greatly accelerated in the unobservable past. We must also assume that the ratio of C-12 to C-14 in the atmosphere has remained constant throughout the unobservable past (so we can know what the ratio was at the time of the specimen's death). And yet we know that "radiocarbon is forming 28-37% faster than it is decaying," which means it hasn't yet reached equilibrium, which means the ratio is higher today than it was in the unobservable past. We also know that the ratio decreased during the industrial revolution due to the dramatic increase of CO2 produced by factories. This man-made fluctuation wasn't a natural occurrence, but it demonstrates the fact that fluctuation is possible and that a period of natural upheaval upon the earth could greatly affect the ratio. Volcanoes spew out CO2 which could just as effectively decrease the ratio. Specimens which lived and died during a period of intense volcanism would appear older than they really are if they were dated using this technique. The ratio can further be affected by C-14 production rates in the atmosphere, which in turn is affected by the amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth's atmosphere. The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth's atmosphere is itself affected by things like the earth's magnetic field which deflects cosmic rays. Precise measurements taken over the last 140 years have shown a steady decay in the strength of the earth's magnetic field. This means there's been a steady increase in radiocarbon production (which would increase the ratio).

And finally, this dating scheme is controversial because the dates derived are often wildly inconsistent. For example, "One part of Dima [a famous baby mammoth discovered in 1977] was 40,000 RCY [Radiocarbon Years], another was 26,000 RCY, and 'wood found immediately around the carcass' was 9,000-10,000 RCY." - In the Beginning, Dr Walt Brown, (2001, p. 176)


And this from the world's top Egyptologist, Dr Zahi Hawass:


“Not even in five thousand years could carbon dating help archaeology. We can use other kinds of methods like geoarchaeology, which is very important, or DNA, or laser scanning, but carbon dating is useless. This science will never develop. In archaeology, we consider carbon dating results imaginary." - Dr Zahi Hawass, Science Magazine, 18 June 2010


Regards,

Scott Creighton



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 08:06 PM
link   
I agree on the stance that aliens did help them out. Most civilizations were advanced by aliens, or even fallen angels. dare i say it



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by riggs2099
 


that's what im saying, lol



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by riggs2099
Umm maybe humans were a little more advanced than once thought. Always the aliens..everything with you people is alien made...
. Have a little more faith in your own species.


always the aliens.. aren't we aliens though?..



posted on Nov, 2 2010 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
reply to post by Harte
 


Harte: Dendrochronology, among other methods, is used to calibrate C14 dates, which is why you'll find terms like the "carbon date" or the number of "carbon years" for artifacts that are dated this way.


SC: Dendrochronology, huh? Let's look at what the experts say:

Need I say more?

Sure. But you apparently won't.

Every method has its detractors. Obviously, you will not appreciate the times when C14 and dendrochronological methods agree with each other within each ones' margin of error - which is the vast majority of times.

I suppose that this situation is merely coincidental in your mind, such as it is.



As for C14 dating, I think these quotes sum up its problems quite concisely::


“Carbon dating is controversial for a couple of reasons. First of all, it's predicated upon a set of questionable assumptions. We have to assume, for example, that the rate of decay (that is, a 5,730 year half-life) has remained constant throughout the unobservable past. However, there is strong evidence which suggests that radioactive decay may have been greatly accelerated in the unobservable past.

This means that the further back you go, the less reliable C14 is. That's all it means.

Of course, the assumption above that rates of decay have changed is a much shakier assumption that that they haven't. On top of that, why should they have been "greatly accelerated"? They could as easily have been "greatly deccelerated."

I'll tell you why. "Greatly accelerated" allows creationists to hold on to their pet "young Earth" ideas, while greatly deccelerated does the opposite.

Given that C14 can't possibly be used for any dates prior to about 55KYBP, and given that the vast majority of dates of interest are all in the first quartile of that range, this objection becomes meaningless.


We must also assume that the ratio of C-12 to C-14 in the atmosphere has remained constant throughout the unobservable past (so we can know what the ratio was at the time of the specimen's death). And yet we know that "radiocarbon is forming 28-37% faster than it is decaying," which means it hasn't yet reached equilibrium, which means the ratio is higher today than it was in the unobservable past.

In fact, it means no such thing.

There are known instances of increase (and decrease) in C14 production in the atmosphere and these events are part of the calibration process.

Are all such events known? Certainly not. That's why there is a margin of error.




And this from the world's top Egyptologist, Dr Zahi Hawass:


“Not even in five thousand years could carbon dating help archaeology. We can use other kinds of methods like geoarchaeology, which is very important, or DNA, or laser scanning, but carbon dating is useless. This science will never develop. In archaeology, we consider carbon dating results imaginary." - Dr Zahi Hawass, Science Magazine, 18 June 2010


One wonders why you quoted this without the context.

Wait. On second thought, one actually does not wonder this at all.

Hawass' objection was that the margin of error for the Egyptian time period is plus or minus 100 years.

That is his only objection. He believes that things can be dated more accurately by other means.

Don't believe me?

Doesn't anyone wonder why Scott didn't link to the article?

Here: Archaeologist comments on carbon dating - science magazine (reprint.)

Harte



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 06:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


Harte: Dendrochronology, among other methods, is used to calibrate C14 dates, which is why you'll find terms like the "carbon date" or the number of "carbon years" for artifacts that are dated this way.

SC: Dendrochronology, huh? Let's look at what the experts say:

Need I say more?

Harte: Sure. But you apparently won't.

Every method has its detractors. Obviously, you will not appreciate the times when C14 and dendrochronological methods agree with each other within each ones' margin of error - which is the vast majority of times.


SC: The “vast majority of the times”. Really? I am not convinced by your statement nor share your confidence in the C14 technique, and for good reason.


"The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technical refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a 'fix-it-as-we-go' approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation here, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come to be accepted. … No matter how 'useful' it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates.” – Robert E. Lee, Radiocarbon, Ages in Error, (Anthropological Journal of Canada, Vol. 19, No.3, 1981, pp. 9, 29)



Harte: I suppose that this situation is merely coincidental in your mind, such as it is.


SC: It has little actually to do with what I consider to be “coincidental” but rather what other scientists (see above) have to say about the technique. It is the conflicting accounts of the accuracy of C14 that gives me cause to doubt. If “fully half” of all C14 results are being rejected as erroneous results how can we possibly know with any degree of certainty that the other half are any less spurious?


SC: As for C14 dating, I think these quotes sum up its problems quite concisely::


“Carbon dating is controversial for a couple of reasons. First of all, it's predicated upon a set of questionable assumptions. We have to assume, for example, that the rate of decay (that is, a 5,730 year half-life) has remained constant throughout the unobservable past. However, there is strong evidence which suggests that radioactive decay may have been greatly accelerated in the unobservable past.

Harte: This means that the further back you go, the less reliable C14 is. That's all it means.


SC: And yet “fully half” of all dates determined using this technique are rejected. Here’s what a couple of other archaeologists have to say on the matter:


“…when a radiocarbon date agrees with the expectations of the excavator it appears in the main text of the site report; if it is slightly discrepant it is relegated to a footnote; if it seriously conflicts it is left out altogether.” - Centuries of Darkness, Peter James, Dr I. J. Thorpe, Dr Nikos Kokkinos, Dr Robert Morkot and John Frankish, London: Jonathan Cape 1991


‘I’ve used carbon-14 dating… frankly, among archaeologists, carbon dating is a big joke. They send samples to the laboratories to be dated. If it comes back and agrees with the dates they’ve already decided from the style of pottery, they will say, “Carbon-14 dating of this sample confirms our conclusions.” But if it doesn’t agree, they just think the laboratory has got it wrong, and that’s the end of it. It’s only a showcase. Archaeologists never (let me emphasize this) NEVER date their finds by carbon-14. They only quote it [C14 date] if it agrees with their conclusions.’- David Down, Archaeologist


SC: Now the above archaeologists are not talking about artefacts that they assume to be 10, 20, 30 or 55 thousand years old. They are talking about artefacts that are perhaps 2,3, 4 or 5 thousand years old. And yet the C14 dating technique STILL produces dates that the archaeologists completely reject and do not publish. The dates that ARE published are nothing more than a showcase.


Of course, the assumption above that rates of decay have changed is a much shakier assumption that that they haven't. On top of that, why should they have been "greatly accelerated"? They could as easily have been "greatly deccelerated."


SC: A simple volcanic eruption will change the nature and composition of the Earth’s biosphere. And you can shout dendrochronological calibration until you are blue in the face – it ALSO is flawed. It’s like the blind leading the blind.


Harte: I'll tell you why. "Greatly accelerated" allows creationists to hold on to their pet "young Earth" ideas, while greatly deccelerated does the opposite.


SC: I have no interest in people’s religious beliefs here – only in the science. There are many brilliant scientists out there with many different religious ideas. Why condemn a brilliant scientists just because he happens to be a Jedi and believes in the Force? It’s the SCIENCE that matters here.


Harte:Given that C14 can't possibly be used for any dates prior to about 55KYBP, and given that the vast majority of dates of interest are all in the first quartile of that range, this objection becomes meaningless.


SC: Meaningless to you perhaps but not to the archaeologists and other scientists out in the field (see above quotes) who are left scratching their heads when the C14 lab tells them what is believed to be a piece of Middle Kingdom mummy-wrapping is in fact 14,000 years old.


We must also assume that the ratio of C-12 to C-14 in the atmosphere has remained constant throughout the unobservable past (so we can know what the ratio was at the time of the specimen's death). And yet we know that "radiocarbon is forming 28-37% faster than it is decaying," which means it hasn't yet reached equilibrium, which means the ratio is higher today than it was in the unobservable past.

Harte: In fact, it means no such thing. There are known instances of increase (and decrease) in C14 production in the atmosphere and these events are part of the calibration process. Are all such events known? Certainly not.


SC: And therein lies the problem.


Harte: That's why there is a margin of error.


SC: And how can you know that the margin of error should not be higher or lower?


SC: And this from the world's top Egyptologist, Dr Zahi Hawass:

“Not even in five thousand years could carbon dating help archaeology. We can use other kinds of methods like geoarchaeology, which is very important, or DNA, or laser scanning, but carbon dating is useless. This science will never develop. In archaeology, we consider carbon dating results imaginary." - Dr Zahi Hawass, Science Magazine, 18 June 2010

Harte: One wonders why you quoted this without the context. Wait. On second thought, one actually does not wonder this at all. Hawass' objection was that the margin of error for the Egyptian time period is plus or minus 100 years. That is his only objection. He believes that things can be dated more accurately by other means.


SC: Yes, a margin of error of the selected results. This margin of error will not include the “fully half of dates that are rejected”. This 100 year margin of error is nothing more than a smokescreen and Hawass knows this. Hawass knows exactly why he is rejecting the C14 dating method – for the same reasons other archaeologists and other scientists have rejected it. Hawass knows all about the selected results.


Harte: Don't believe me? Doesn't anyone wonder why Scott didn't link to the article?

Here: Archaeologist comments on carbon dating - science magazine (reprint.)


SC: I gave the source to the Hawass quote. You managed to find the source article I would guess within a matter of seconds using Google – as could anyone interested enough in so doing. What’s your point?

In my opinion the jury is well and truly out as far as C14 dating goes and I say this only from what I have read of both sides of the C14 debate. I accept the THEORY sounds good but to my mind accepting the C14 dating method when so many other scientists seriously question it and when half of all results it presents are considered spurious cannot remotely be considered reasonable. To believe in such a questionable method can in no way, in my opinion, be considered a matter of science but rather a matter of faith. And where is the science in faith?

Regards,

Scott Creighton
edit on 3/11/2010 by Scott Creighton because: Typo



posted on Nov, 4 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
SC: I have no interest in people’s religious beliefs here – only in the science. There are many brilliant scientists out there with many different religious ideas. Why condemn a brilliant scientists just because he happens to be a Jedi and believes in the Force? It’s the SCIENCE that matters here.

Really?
That's odd, considering the "scientists" you admire enough to quote here are Biblical Archaeologists trying to fit the Egyptian timeline to their assumption for a certain period for the Exodus. Given the fact that there isn't a scintilla of evidence for the Exodus, or even the existence of Moses, I don't wonder that they mistrust the very dating method that causes their consternation.


Originally posted by Scott Creighton

Harte:Given that C14 can't possibly be used for any dates prior to about 55KYBP, and given that the vast majority of dates of interest are all in the first quartile of that range, this objection becomes meaningless.


SC: Meaningless to you perhaps but not to the archaeologists and other scientists out in the field (see above quotes) who are left scratching their heads when the C14 lab tells them what is believed to be a piece of Middle Kingdom mummy-wrapping is in fact 14,000 years old.

Samples get contaminated. There are many possible sources for old carbon, not the least of which is some of the materials used in the mummification process.

Perhaps these folks are "scratching their heads" more at the way their faith-based timeline won't match up with what real science tells us.

Harte



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


Harte: That's odd, considering the "scientists" you admire enough to quote here are Biblical Archaeologists trying to fit the Egyptian timeline to their assumption for a certain period for the Exodus. Given the fact that there isn't a scintilla of evidence for the Exodus, or even the existence of Moses, I don't wonder that they mistrust the very dating method that causes their consternation.


SC: I don’t give a flying fig about the ‘Exodus’ or “the existence of Moses”. All you are attempting to do here is to tarnish the SCIENTIFIC views of SCIENTISTS because of their perceived religious agenda. If you can’t beat their science, attack their religious views. How sad, how tragic.

What you simply must understand here is that SCIENCE is SCIENCE and it will not be dictated to by the petty agendas of men – religious or otherwise. And of agendas there are plenty – even by those non-religious scientists whom you subscibe to. Those scientists I quoted above are telling us that archaeologists – religious and non-religious – DO NOT date their artefacts using C14 dating, that it is “a joke” and nothing more than "a showcase".


Harte: Samples get contaminated.


SC: Indeed they do. Which is why usually at least three labs are involved and multiple tests of sample material made.

[snip]


Harte: Perhaps these folks are "scratching their heads" more at the way their faith-based timeline won't match up with what real science tells us.


SC: Or perhaps it is more likely that they are scratching their heads because the underlying science of C14-dating as well as its calibration techniques is highly suspect if not, indeed, fatally flawed. With so many conflicting results this points to the truth of the matter - that the science of C14 dating is highly questionable. And no amount of burying your head in the sand will ever change that simple truth or make it go away. The science is questionable. Period.

Regards,

Scott Creighton
edit on 5/11/2010 by Scott Creighton because: Typo



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scott Creighton

SC: Or perhaps it is more likely that they are scratching their heads because the underlying science of C14-dating as well as its calibration techniques is highly suspect if not, indeed, fatally flawed. With so many conflicting results this points to the truth of the matter - that the science of C14 dating is highly questionable. And no amount of burying your head in the sand will ever change that simple truth or make it go away. The science is questionable. Period.


Sure.

The entire field of quantum mechanics is a fabrication designed to make us think that humans in the past were smart enough to do their own work.

I would like to point out that your own "scientists" (one of whom is a writer, not a scientist at all) are complaining that C14 dating regarding the Egyptian time line puts the Egyptians too far into the past.

Given the C14 dates on the GP, this means it was built sometime around 2,000 BCE instead of 2600 BCE.

How does that mesh with your other ridiculous views, Scott?

Harte



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


Harte: The entire field of quantum mechanics is a fabrication designed to make us think that humans in the past were smart enough to do their own work.


SC: Irrelevant to the discussion.


Harte: I would like to point out that your own "scientists" (one of whom is a writer, not a scientist at all) are complaining that C14 dating regarding the Egyptian time line puts the Egyptians too far into the past.


SC: The scientists I have cited are highlighting the flaws in the science of C14-dating and its calibration methods. That is all I am interested in here. As I said to you previously - the science of C14-dating (and its callibration methods) is questionable. I can cite many other scientists (other than those already cited above) that question the reliability of C14-dating if that will help convince you any better of its questionable status. And I am quite certain that if you were ever on trial for a serious crime, you would be demanding that any evidence against you that was of a questionable nature be dismissed from the court.


Harte: Given the C14 dates on the GP, this means it was built sometime around 2,000 BCE instead of 2600 BCE.


SC: Or 3,800 BCE but that’s another C14-dating story concerning the GP. Like I said – I am interested ONLY in the science of the scientists – NOT the religious beliefs of the scientists. And, since you have made the statement – PROVE to us with unequivocal evidence that the GP was constructed c.2, 600 BCE. Present to us the hard evidence that proves your statement that the GP was built c.2,600BCE. Let’s have it.


Harte: How does that mesh with your other ridiculous views, Scott?


SC:First of all, we are not discussing MY views here. We are discussing the merits – or otherwise – of C14 dating and the methods used to calibrate its results. The science is highly questionable. Period. Secondly, SAYING my views are “ridiculous” will not, in fact, actually make them so – you can only ever hope to do that with EVIDENCE. Now, if you have any issues with my views on any particular topic then please feel free to open a thread and I shall be more than happy to discuss such with you there.

Kind Regards,

Scott Creighton



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 06:06 AM
link   
Just wanted to bump this thread out of shear jaw dropping awesomeness

This is why I come to ATS



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


Thankyou for the voice of reason.

We employ carbon dating and dendrochronology and lichenology as part of our 'toolkit' for dating archaeological/Late Quaternary material in New Zealand because it works (it isn't employed as the sole method) and marries well with other techniques and observations.
Older material requires different techniques, such as Rubidium-Strontium, or Argon- Argon etc.

The people who use these techniques are well aware that there are margins of error within the technique, which is why they are not the sole technique used but are backed up by other, complementary techniques.

Anybody who is actively involved in Archaeology/Geology is well aware of this and it seems that the detractors are actually quite ignorant of the Scientific Method, the processes involved and the scrutiny of such data.

So, once again, thanks Harte.


Perhaps detractors could ask these people for their assessment. Or perhaps they would rather say that they are part of the 'whole carbon conspiracy'?
c14.arch.ox.ac.uk...
edit on 30-12-2010 by aorAki because: link



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   
I have to admit I like these types of threads.

Pretty sure we might have gotten help from aliens in the past.Mean,just look at all the pyramids around the world.

...makes you wonder



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki
reply to post by Harte
 


Thank you for the voice of reason.

You're very welcome aorAki.

Too bad about the post right after yours, isn't it? Kind of takes away from the reasonableness and thrusts us right back into the morass of moronic mouthbreathers, doesn't it?

Ah well, no rest for the weary, though I have semi-retired from this site.

Maybe I stopped too soon.

Nah, I'll let you handle this one.


Harte





new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join