It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Originally posted by Helious
One cannot rely totally on carbon dating. It has been shown to be flawed recently and caught many people off guard. This is still being hashed out but you must consider that what we once thought we knew, maybe, has to be re calculated.
No it hasn't, they figured out that the effect of the sun on decay rates is predictable and they've figured out how to calibrate and compensate around it.
There was no evidence found of specimen contamination from outside sources, and that's the only reason these false dates are found.
If you can assume that flesh can be preserved for 80 million years and retain some elasticity, you can assume just about anything.
Originally posted by Masterjaden
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
What on earth leads you to believe that I don't know that much about science....
Wow, I obviously understand relativity better than you, yet you start slinging around that I don't understand science. I happen to have two bachelor's and a master's and atleast one of those degrees is in one of the sciences....
Just because someone doesn't agree with you on the modern PARADIGMs of science does not mean that they are not well versed in the sciences...
In my case it is just the opposite, it wasn't until I became well versed in the sciences that I started to see all of the holes and flaws in logic of them...
nd most likely reflect bacterial activity near the outer surface of the bone (although no bacterial proteins or hopanoids were detected, one bacterial DNA sequence was amplified by PCR, and microscopic clusters of bone-boring cyanobacteria were seen in places along the perimeter of the diaphyseal cortex)
In a simple point of fact, there has not been an explanation of why we see this in observable science, no method has been introduced as of yet to "account" nor "calculate" this discrepantly. There is conjecture and discussion but there is fact behind the evidence that has yet to be understood.
But your wrong, because of the nature of man.
The scientific establishment has shown again and again that they can't be trusted for peer review, if you take a stance outside the purview of the establishment, you are ostracised until you have no choice but to go along with the establishment. It has happened time and again. How many of the now accepted theories weren't accepted at all during the lifetimes of their thinkers???
It's nothing against science, it's the nature of man. Peer review can only go so far when the very foundations of most of the sciences are corrupt and or based on circular logic. Once something is accepted by the establishment and other principles and science is based on that accepted "fact" you are doomed to go further and further from the truth even with peer review because of the nature of man and it is only through epiphany and undeniable evidence (isn't truly possible) that you have paradigm shifts.
The main problems in science and peer review started once they had started using inductive reasoning to determine so called fact, because any "fact" that was then used as a basis and foundation for other theories and "facts" was inherently distorted... Couple that with fanatical religious adherence to paradigmical doctrine of the sciences and you get farther from the truth not closer.
Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by golemina
Those are called citations... They back my argument... Obviously you aren't familiar with the concept as you never use them.
So what you are saying is you don't have any evidence to refute or argue against the position and accepted understanding of those subjects? What has your heavy lifting shown to refute said claims? I like to be well informed in my decisions... What evidence can you provide for me to better educate myself on thes subjects?
Based on your response, I'm guessing you don't understand either concept or the science behind them. However, I'm all ears if "your" research suggests a different alternative.