I have proof and fossils from my front yard that prove otherwise. Crustaceans in limestone rock in Kentucky.

Creationists were right all along. Just like I always knew and idiots still deny.

I worry about you, stone. You have no objective evidence to assert your belief system.

Even all the sequential "begats" in the Tanakh or otherwise called, "the Old Testament" ... as a sequential record of historical fact for the Jewish sheepherders, do not measure an accurate approach for when mankind's conscience awakened at the moment of "the Beginning."

Get a fuckin' life.

Creationists were right all along. Just like I always knew and idiots still deny.

I don't know that the Creationists are right, but I do know that the actual underlying pictoglyphic text of Genesis 1 is vastly more complex, and sophisticated, than the simple translations that sit atop it. There is a genius behind that text that is supernatural in its depth.

The text itself, seen as it is, is more than a work of literature. It's a miracle.

The tree rings were samples of Jordanian juniper that grew in the southern region of the Middle East between 1610 and 1940 CE. By counting the tree rings, the team were able to create a reasonably accurate timeline of annual changes in carbon-14 uptake for those centuries.

Alarmingly, going by INTCAL13 alone, those same radiocarbon measurements would have provided dates that were older by an average of 19 years.

The difference most likely comes down to changes in regional climates, such as warming conditions. Extrapolating the findings back to earlier periods, archaeologists attempting to pinpoint Iron Age or Biblical events down to a few years would no doubt have a serious need to question their calibrations.

One controversial example is the dating of a single layer of archaeology at the Bronze and Iron Age city buried at Tel Rehov.

Just a few decades of difference could help resolve an ongoing debate over the extent of Solomon's biblical kingdom, making findings like these more than a minor quibble in a politically contested part of the world.

Hmmm...I see their assertions here but was unaware that anyone considered 19 years margin of error in carbon dating to be significant. No one ever considered it that accurate to begin with.

Nor do they detail how they think a difference of 19 years would give us more meaningful info about the size and distribution of Solomon's kingdom. Or why that would have a modern geopolitical impact.

Maybe there is something to this academic dispute but the article hasn't fleshed it out for the reader.

Where is any direct internet link to the gobble-d-goop you just described?

There isn't any.

You have to do the work yourself.

archaeologists attempting to pinpoint Iron Age or Biblical events down to a few years would no doubt have a serious need to question their calibrations.

Very interesting, but some commentators have difficulty in settling the century for biblical events so is this a big deal? The older the date the more likely carbon dating will be wrong. In fact, before testing archaeologists might be asked how old they think an object is, so the date given could be very subjective

buckeroo: Where is any direct internet link to the gobble-d-goop you just described?

Vicomte13: There isn't any. You have to do the work yourself.

You are another liar, thief and sneaker of personal tyme as you described; how can I chase down your BULLSHIT without direct support? Go FUCK Yourself.

You are another liar, thief and sneaker of personal tyme as you described; how can I chase down your BULLSHIT without direct support? Go FUCK Yourself.

Not really, I could direct you to the sources that will teach you the petroglyphs, and sources by which you can learn Hebrew, then you can apply the knowledge and do the work and see it for yourself.

What does not exist is a ready-made, already-done source for this. If it exists, I have never found it.

So if you want to see it, you have to do the work. Obviously given your wildly disproportionate rage at me you're not going to take my own work on the matter.

(I never did anything to you to warrant such a foul-mouthed tirade. YOU'RE the one who comes to this Internet site and wastes his time, I don't drag you here against your will.)

Creationists were right all along.

LOL! You should hit the humor ping list for that one.

I worry about you, stone. You have no objective evidence to assert your belief system.

That's why they call religions "faiths". Start demanding evidence and they all have to shut their doors and go out of business.

Hmmm...I see their assertions here but was unaware that anyone considered 19 years margin of error in carbon dating to be significant.

It's not even an eye blink when related to the age of the planet.

That's why they call religions "faiths". Start demanding evidence and they all have to shut their doors and go out of business.

You say that but you cannot back it up.

Lets play and see how dumb you can be at this subject (no you're not dumb at everything you are quite smart in some areas just not here.)

You believe in the tooth fairy and evolution.

You say things come from the spontaneous combustion of mud. Except that has never been witnessed or duplicated in the lab.

The Bible says God created everything natural. That things reproduce after like kind.

That is what you see in the world. Seeds make one thing they don't turn into something if you breathe the magic pixie dust of evilution.

Ok so idiots believe in evolution.

Just because you are a cripple doesn't mean God doesn't exist.

Tell me brainica how the human nervous system evolved. You can't explain that or anything on this subject can you. You just hate God because you think he wont answer your prayers and heal your body.

I put your ultra liberal Jameson like talking point out of business. You have nothing of substance you can add because you are out of your mind and believe that when princesses kiss frogs they turn into people. Frickin idiot at times.

What is the percentage they are off.

If they are off that much for a short time span. How much for a long time span.

It is bullshit and only idiots who love their sin believe in the dating methods used.

They have been debunked a hundred times over.

It's not even an eye blink when related to the age of the planet.

How old is the planet and how do you know?

Oh you don't know and can't explain shit can you. Out of business.

What is the percentage they are off.

If they are off that much for a short time span. How much for a long time span.

I'm questioning whether ¹⁴C dating has ever been reliably considered to be dead-accurate to within 19 years.

Apparently, this is a somewhat complex situation with various timelines constructed for the eras in which particular empires and kingdoms (including Solomon's) were in power and were then succeeded by another empire or kingdom. These become cumalative because of the way they are "stacked". So apparently they've tried to resolve some of the contradictions in the scant historical evidence by filling in the blanks via ¹⁴C dating methods. It seems this article is questioning the accuracy of that methodology.

The general accuracy of the dating is not in question, more in how they apply it to questionable timeline scenarios such as the geographical extent of Solomon's kingdom and when certain areas of the periphery of his kingdom came under or passed from his control.

So, if you think this tidbit is some move in science circles to entirely discredit the use of carbon dating, you just haven't read the article properly. In no way is anyone suggesting abandoning carbon dating as worthless. They're merely saying that it isn't accurate enough to try to date things within 19 years of an event in ancient times.

Which is what we've known about the limits and fallibility of carbon dating for the last 50 years.

It's not even an eye blink when related to the age of the planet.

Sure but science doesn't date the earth's age by carbon dating. They use other means of providing an estimate.

Sure but science doesn't date the earth's age by carbon dating. They use other means of providing an estimate.

The means used rely on radioactive decay, which is a function of "c".

There are two things to note.

First: radioactive decay rates are affected by the strength of solar output. We don't know why, but it has been observed in some experiments.

Second:

Carbon dating plays little if any role in current estimates of the earth's age. It's too flawed.

You believe in the tooth fairy and evolution.

No,I don't.

You say things come from the spontaneous combustion of mud.

Well,smoke and flames come from spontaneous combustion,but water is,AFAIK,the only thing that makes mud explosive.

The Bible says God created everything natural. That things reproduce after like kind.

Which is it? Did God create them,or did they do their own recreating?

Do you believe everything you read?

That is what you see in the world. Seeds make one thing they don't turn into something if you breathe the magic pixie dust of evilution.

Which side of this discussion are you taking?

Ok so idiots believe in evolution.

Some do,and some idiots believe everything their Shaman tells them,even stuff written by unknown authors.

Just because you are a cripple doesn't mean God doesn't exist.

Nor does it mean a God exists.

Tell me brainica how the human nervous system evolved. You can't explain that or anything on this subject can you.

Everything alive has a nervous system. Just because I can't explain it to you,or that people who can couldn't explain it to you at a level you can understand,doesn't mean some Holy Ghost living in clouds created it all.

Why don't YOU tell ME who created God,since you know so much about this stuff?

According to your own dogma,nothing just happens by accident,so splain it.

You just hate God because you think he wont answer your prayers and heal your body.

No,and I don't hate the Easter Bunny,Santa,or any other mythical personages.

I DO have to admit I have a healthy helping of hatred for the religious charlatans that dedicate their lives to getting wealthy and powerful be fleecing their flocks,though.

I put your ultra liberal Jameson like talking point out of business. You have nothing of substance you can add because you are out of your mind and believe that when princesses kiss frogs they turn into people.

That sounds more like your beliefs than mine.

Frickin idiot at times.

You said it,not me.

How old is the planet and how do you know?

I have no idea.

Nor do I care because it is irrelevant.

It IS older than 2,000 years,though.

"What is a light year" - for 13.8 billion and final Jeopardy!

Carbon dating plays little if any role in current estimates of the earth's age. It's too flawed.

No, it's too SHORT. Carbon dating is only good back about 50,000 years.

By that point, the C-14 is all gone. You need more stable, longer-lived radioactive isotopes, Uranium and the like, to measure oceans of time. 50,000 years is a pond.

Dinosaurs are not dated by Carbon 14.

So God blew up SN 2213-1745 and SN 1000+0216 as what... some sort of cosmic practical joke?

He is trying to keep us on our toes. A real test of faith.

Carbon dating plays little if any role in current estimates of the earth's age. It's too flawed.

It's not just that. All of the Carbon 14 is gone after 50,000 years, so you can't use it to tell the difference between 51,000 and 500 million years old: zero is zero.

Carbon dating no longer provides any information before 48,000 BC or so.

Assumption piled on assumption piles on assumption

It does make the knowledge less than certain, I agree.

The main problem is that all radioactive dating techniques rely upon an underlying assumption of a relatively uniform state of decay, which is fundamentally driven by "c". If c was faster in the past, the clock is not constant.

It's not just that. All of the Carbon 14 is gone after 50,000 years, so you can't use it to tell the difference between 51,000 and 500 million years old: zero is zero.

Carbon dating no longer provides any information before 48,000 BC or so.

I'm not sure why you keep repeating this since it is not true. It is not zero C14 after 50,000 years at all.

We have methods of carbon dating that go back as far as 75,000 years and we could develop it further if we wanted to. We just don't have any real need to do so as we have other isotopes to measure and other dating methods we use.

isotopes to measure and other dating methods we use.

That use carbon dating to "check their pet theory".

The earth is exactly as old as the Bible says it is.

Add up the begats and you have the age.

You can believe God is a liar. I choose to believe the Bible is true.

I'm not sure why you keep repeating this since it is not true. It is not zero C14 after 50,000 years at all.

We have methods of carbon dating that go back as far as 75,000 years and we could develop it further if we wanted to. We just don't have any real need to do so as we have other isotopes to measure and other dating methods we use.

I keep repeating it because it is true.

Carbon-14 has a half life of 5730 years, under presently observed conditions, and there isn't all that much of it to begin with. In living tissue, there is about 1 C-14 atom for every trillion Carbon atoms. One part per trillion, 1 C-14 atom for every 10 to the 12th Carbon atoms. That's a low concentration.

Let's consider a human body. By weight, carbon makes up only 18.5% of the human body. So a 150 pound living man is composed of 27.75 pounds of carbon, 99% of that carbon is C-12, 1% is C-14. So, 2.775 times 10 to the negative 11th power pounds of C-14 atoms are in the living man, which is to say that there are 623,879,200,000,000,000 C-14 atoms in a living 150 pound man. Once he stops breathing and stops eating, there is no more C-14 being added.

The half life is 5730. So, in 5730 years there will be 311,939,600,000,000,000 C-14 atoms left in his remains. Of course, if there are any remains, they will have been diluted by whatever is preserving them.

In 11,460 years there will be 155,969,800,000,000,000 C-14 atoms left

In 17,190 years there will be 77,984,900,000,000,000 C-14s left.

In 22,920 years, there will be 38,992,450,000,000,000 C-14s left.

In 28,650 years there will be 19,496,225,000,000,000 C-14s left.

In 34,380 years there will be 9,748,112,500,000,000 C-14s left.

In 40,110 years there will be 4,874,056,250,000,000 C-14s left.

In 45,840 years there will be 2,437,028,125,000,000 C-14s left.

In 51,610 years there will be 1,218,514,962,500,000 C-14s left.

That isn't much left from the original same, less than two-tenths of one percent.

And of course this assumes that one is carbon dating a whole, intact human corpse, a 150 pound sample. Radiocarbon dating is not done on 150 pound samples. The machines can't hold anything like that. The sample sizes used are 100 GRAM samples - THAT is what fits into the machines.

So, let's take the remains of that 150 pound man and look at the actual sample size we can test. 150 pounds is 67200 grams. We're only going to be able to test .0014880952380952 of that sample.

So, at the 51,610 year point, there are only 1,813,266,313,244 C-14 atoms left in the testable sample. That's small, but detectable.

Go one cycle further, to 57,340 years, and the number of atoms in the total sample drops to the 902,633,156,622 range, which is quite a bit smaller than the US budget in dollars, and at the bare limits of our ability to detect.

Using very long test times and super-sensitive equipment, that have been able to manage to extend Carbon-14 testing to 75,000 years. No farther.

It is not hard to see why. At 63,070 years you've only got 453 billion C-14s left in your whole sample.

At 68,800 years, you're down to 226.6 billion C-14s left.

And at 74,530 years, you're down to 113.3 billion atoms, in a sample size of 5 septillion atoms, which is to say 1 part in 24 trillion. Our technology is not capable of reliably sorting that out.

You can see, then, why C-14 cannot possibly be used to date dinosaurs. The last dinosaurs are said to have gone extinct 65 million years ago.

Let's keep running our math.

At 80,260 years, there are 56.65 billion C-14s left in our sample.

At 85,990 years there are 28.325 billion C-14s left in our sample. We're already well below our threshold of detection, but they are there, at least theoretically. We cannot confirm this by direct observation, but we have to assume it is so.

At 91,720 years where are 14.16 billion atoms left.

At 97,450 years, 7.08 billion.

At 103,180 years, 3.54 billion.

Go back 57,300 more years, to 160,480 years, and you're down to 3.45 MILLION C-14s left. You're trying to find a single marked grain of sand on the California cost.

Go back another 57,300 years, and you have 3376 Carbon 14 atoms left in your sample.

Go back yet another 57,300 years, and there are 4 Carbon 14 atoms left. Four. How far back are we now? 275,080 years.

Go back 5730 more years, and there are 2 C-14 Atoms left. Another 5730 years, and there is 1 left. By 291,570 years back, there are no C-14 atoms left in the sample. Zero. Null.

Long before that point you passed any possibility of detection.

That is why I "keep saying" that radio-carbon dating cannot be used to date the dinosaurs.

There is NO Carbon 15 left from 65 million years ago. None. THEORETICALLY, in the whole world, there are a few atoms of it, maybe. To detect them would be like trying to find a aingle marked grain of sand randomly scattered on one of the world's beaches.

Did I need to go through all of that? Yes, I think I did. There is a pugnacious attitude around here about many things. Sometimes you have to brute force down to zero to demonstrate the point. I will now reiterate it explicitly:

ASSUMING that rates of radioactive decay are constant, and ASSUMING that the dinosaurs died out some 65 million years ago, it is categorically impossible to use C-14 to date dinosaur bones. 65 million year old Carbon 14 does not exist. At all. It has all decayed. Only theoretically is there some left. This is not provable, because it is impossible to design a machine that is so sensitive. In any case, Carbon-14 us COMPLETELY useless for dating dinosaurs. There is NO USE WHATSOEVER for C-14. It isn't simply "impracticable", it is impossible, full stop.

At 60 iterations, 343,800 years, the last C-14 atom in that 150 pound man's remains broke down. There is none left.

Coal is said to be ancient vegetation. Assuming that is true, there is a reason it is used as the inert background substrate for C-14 dating. There is no detectable Carbon-14 in it. This is not because our machines are not sensitive enough. It is because all of the C-14 has decayed. That's why it is completely useless for dating dinosaur bones.

And that's why I keep saying so: because it IS so. And also because the resistance here has been a little too fierce given the subject matter.

Did I need to go through all of that? Yes, I think I did.

Nope.

And that's why I keep saying so: because it IS so.

But it is not true, no matter how many keystrokes you expend.

But it is not true, no matter how many keystrokes you expend.

Yes, it is true. It is impossible to date anything a few million years old with Carbon-14, because there's no Carbon-14 left in it. It has all decayed away. It isn't there.

Back past 50,000 years; 75,000 years with herculean efforts at the edge of detectability, we do not have the equipment to detect it.

But no equipment in the world can detect Carbon-14 in a dinosaur, because the dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago, and there is no Carbon-14 left on earth from that long ago, it has entirely decayed.

You can believe God is a liar. I choose to believe the Bible is true.

Correct me if I am wrong,but God didn't write the Bible. Mortal men wrote it.

...dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago...

The agenda-driven Fake Science Cult/Communitah based on wishful thinking has been manipulating sandbagging and striking evidence to the contrary. It is impossible for blood cells to survive "millions" of years, never mind several thousands.

THIS SHOULD have been front page news but wasn't:

Correct me if I am wrong,but God didn't write the Bible. Mortal men wrote it.

Q: When a secretary types/writes her boss's words, *who* is responsible for the transposed content/authorship, Pete?

"Every Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness," ~ 2 Timothy 3:16

There are several verses within the Bible that could have been quoted, by several "men" -- they ALL say basically the same exact thing.

Yes, I realize you'll merely remind me that even THAT verse and similar ones was "written by a mortal man" (inspired BY God). But that's the way The Almighty rolls.

If you're interested, there WAS one instance that God was revealed to have physicality "written" something; A saying we are all familiar with: "The writing on the wall". What transpired was recorded in the Book of Daniel, Chapter 5, NIV:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel+5&version=NIV

The Writing on the Wall

King Belshazzar gave a great banquet for a thousand of his nobles and drank wine with them. While Belshazzar was drinking his wine, he gave orders to bring in the gold and silver goblets that Nebuchadnezzar his father[a] had taken from the temple in Jerusalem, so that the king and his nobles, his wives and his concubines might drink from them. So they brought in the gold goblets that had been taken from the temple of God in Jerusalem, and the king and his nobles, his wives and his concubines drank from them. As they drank the wine, they praised the gods of gold and silver, of bronze, iron, wood and stone.

Suddenly the fingers of a human hand appeared and wrote on the plaster of the wall, near the lampstand in the royal palace. The king watched the hand as it wrote. His face turned pale and he was so frightened that his legs became weak and his knees were knocking...

Daniel was summoned to interpret the writing for King Belshazzar:

“This is the inscription that was written:

mene, mene, tekel, parsin

“Here is what these words mean:

(Mene): God has numbered the days of your reign and brought it to an end.

(Tekel): You have been weighed on the scales and found wanting.

(Peres): Your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians...

That very night Belshazzar, king of the Babylonians, was slain."

Yes, it is true. It is impossible to date anything a few million years old with Carbon-14, because there's no Carbon-14 left in it. It has all decayed away. It isn't there.

Where did I say that? You keep going on about how dinosaurs can't be dated this way but I never said they could. Nice straw man.

Q: When a secretary types/writes her boss's words, *who* is responsible for the transposed content/authorship, Pete?

"Every Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness," ~ 2 Timothy 3:16

Is that from the Old Testament,which is supposed to be the true word of Gawd,or the " New and Improved "NEW Testament",which is the updated true word of Gawd?

Is that from the Old Testament,which is supposed to be the true word of Gawd,or the " New and Improved "NEW Testament",which is the updated true word of Gawd?

The first quote is ME.

The second is from 2 Timothy 3:16, but as I said, there were many I could have used. Both Old and New Testament, penned by different "Gawd-inspired" authors.

Pete, New Testament authors often quoted Old Testament authors. They dovetail with one other as The Book is one connected series of testimony, accounts, and stuff Gawd wants known. Jesus himself often quoted OT text, even the very first chapter, Genesis.

Yes, Jesus did sorta "update" the Word...but because His Coming fulfilled prophecies and also thus changed (for instance) the blood sacrifice of lambs.

It is impossible for blood cells to survive "millions" of years, never mind several thousands.

This is a really interesting point.

It is a serious tremor that cracks the solidity of a theory.

It's an aspect of the subject that creates its own logic tree.

Where did I say that? You keep going on about how dinosaurs can't be dated this way but I never said they could. Nice straw man.

That was my point all along: Carbon dating is useless for dinosaurs.

That was my point all along: Carbon dating is useless for dinosaurs.

Well, thanks for those 10 posts to tell me that C14 dating is not used for dinosaurs when I never suggested that it was.

Well, thanks for those 10 posts to tell me that C14 dating is not used for dinosaurs when I never suggested that it was.

No problem.