Originally posted by DrHoracid
It is based on asumption and not science.
The pine tree inproperly dated had been through several fires and its growth retarded, which changed its C-14 absorption.
Contrary to the complaints of creationists, conventional scientists are well aware of this problem. They test for it and take it into account when interpreting radiocarbon data. In cases where corrections for presence of "dead carbon" cannot be made, such dates are readily recognized as erroneous and can be safely disregarded. This is not the fatal flaw to radiometric dating that some creationists claim it to be. It just shows that dates from molluscs from streams and lakes need to be carefully evaluated as to their reliability. Other materials, such as wood, charcoal, bone, and hide, would remain unaffected by this type of reservoir effect
All data for C-14 dating is based on a recent "living" database (50 years?) and (is) flawed
The variability of the C14/C12 ratio, and the need for calibration, has been recognized since 1969 [Dickin 1995, 364-366]. Calibration is possible by analyzing the C14 content of items dated by independent methods. Dendrochronology (age dating by counting tree rings) has been used to calibrate C14/C12 ratios back more than 11,000 years before the present [Becker et al. 1991; Becker and Kromer 1993]. C14 dating has been calibrated back more than 30,000 years using uranium-thorium (isochron) dating of corals [Bard et al. 1990; Edwards et al. 1993], and to 45,000 b.p. using U-Th dates of glacial lake varve sediments
The rate of *natural* C-14 production can be increased either by an increase in cosmic radiation (leading to increased neutron production), such as happens with a solar flare and the cycle from sunspot-minimum to sunspot maximum; or by an increase in atmospheric nitrogen.
One of Dr Richards' research interests is the calibration of radiobarbon dating[...]The large peak they found is a new and interesting result, though it has no effect except for dates extending back over 33 thousand years.
In summary, this work confirms the principles of radiocarbon dating, confirms and refines existing calibration of radiocarbon dates from 11,000 to something like 24,000 years, extends calibration back to 45,000 years, leading to some significant corrections for dates greater than 30,000 years. These corrections mean that some published dates may be too young.
I am a scientist and have peer reviewed many papers
The hammer is only approx 6000-10,000 years old
The "Rock" it was found in, is what is mis-dated
Originally posted by DrHoracid
One last time. The hammer is only approx 6000-10,000 years old.
The "Rock" it was found in, is what is mis-dated.
Rock dating is based on a layering effect and assumptions as to how long it took to be layered.
Sorry guys, Archeology is very poor science, it is a house of cards..................One assumption holding up another.
Originally posted by AceWombat04
My question is, just out of curiosity, can anyone offer a definitive length of time for the complete degradation of plastic? I've seen several different numbers, both here and via the search engines. I've seen everything from "more than a year," to "over 100 years," "450 years," and "a million years." Which is it?
Does it vary by composition, production methods, etc. ?
Originally posted by DrHoracid
Mans current "tech" is not yet up to Pre-flood times.
However, for years Baugh refused to allow the hammer to be C14 dated. In an exchange of letters between creationist Walter Brown and Jim Lippard in Creation/Evolution, Brown (1989) suggested that the hammer handle has not been dated because Baugh had three "understandable" conditions for dating it: that it be done with mass spectrometry, that Baugh be present during the dating, and that someone else pay for it. However, Lippard countered that no one has objected to the first two conditions, and that Baugh had no right to expect the third, since he's the one making the claims, and thus the one obligated to back them up. Even so, even after others offered to pay for the dating, Baugh declined to have it done. As Day (1991) wrote in a follow up letter: "Far from being 'understandable,' Baugh's stipulations seem to be little short of evasive tactics...If four years have gone by and nothing has happened, I think it is safe to conclude that Baugh has no interest whatsoever in determining the truth about his marvelous hammer."
Finally, in the late 1990's Baugh supporter David Lines reported on a web site (Lines, 1997, 1999) that carbon 14 dating had "recently" been done on a specimen from the inside of the handle, and that the results indicated an age between the Present and 700 years. This reporting format seemed a little curious, since most C14 labs report a date with a plus-or-minus margin of error, rather than just a flat range. Furthermore, no information was given about when or where this was done, or by what C14 method, nor was any formal report referenced. Therefore, such results seem somewhat suspect until more documentation is available, especially considering Baugh's history of dubious and unfounded claims.
Originally posted by LordRothschild
Very interesting. Well for thoughs of u who have heard about the reptilian theory, there is also a theory that a humanoid reptilian race evolved on this planet as well as planet x and other planets in the draco, and orion costilations. If there was a humaniod reptilian race that had advanced technology that would explain where this hammer would have come from.
Whats to say other species did'nt evolve on this planet, and are now living in holo earth
or built space ships to leave the planet.
Maybe the things in the atmosphere that a techno. advanced race needed to live back 10's or even 100's of millions of years ago, r'nt there anymore.
Or maybe they just simply died off for what ever reason.
The hammer dos'nt have to be made by humans. Whos says it has to be made by any species that is native to this planet, it could be a hammer that belong to pp l of a race from another planet.
Theres an infinite number of different theories you could come up with, and non of them should be over looked.
Originally posted by browha
btw i am a physicist..
if i showed you two uranium atoms and asked you to tell me which would decay, and when, do you think you could do it correctly?
admittedly, c-14 dating is one ofour best dating methods because it uses the law of averages, instead of a calculated figure, so we have an average value for the half-life of c-14
but if it's a calculated value then you're open to extrapolation/interpolation errors.
You can find all kinds of hammers and other tools in Michael Cremo's book, "Forbidden Archeology". He also has a website www.mcremo.com... but the book has the entire bibliography and everything else you could ever want to try to prove the fact that scientists find what they're paid to find and that's it.