10,000 year old site in Oregon found

[dlamberth]

OSU team finds 2nd-oldest site of habitants on Oregon's coast

Discovery - Remains of a stone hearth and other evidence south of Bandon date to 10,000 years ago
Wednesday, February 01, 2006 RICHARD L. HILL

Archaeologists exploring a windy bluff on the southern Oregon coast have found evidence of people in the area about 10,000 years ago, making it the second oldest such site on the state's shoreline.

Remnants of a stone hearth, chunks of charcoal and stone flakes were discovered in the small excavation in the Bandon State Natural Area just south of Bandon.

A team led by archaeologists Roberta Hall and Loren Davis of Oregon State University reports the discovery and calls for a more complete investigation in the journal Radiocarbon. Four years ago, the team found evidence of people about 12,000 years ago -- the oldest coastal site ever found -- in Boardman State Park north of Brookings.

Read the rest of the article HERE

.

 

[Dannager]

Looks like Young-earth Creationism's been debunked. With this debate over, what are all of us to do?

 

[JGL53]

Looks like Young-earth Creationism's been debunked. With this debate over, what are all of us to do?

Nope. The YECs will reason that 1. since god's holy book plainly states the earth was created circa 6 thousand years ago and 2. these scientists, in contradiction to god's holy word, claim to have found evidence of human existence on earth 10 or 12 thousand years ago then 3. these scientists are either knowingly or unknowingly doing the work of Satan, are in danger of hellfire for their blasphemy, and need to repent before it is too late.

BTW, are there any RCC members who are YECs? I've never met any - then, again, I live in Mississippi so I don't run into that many RCs.

 

[Dannager]

BTW, are there any RCC members who are YECs? I've never met any - then, again, I live in Mississippi so I don't run into that many RCs.

One of the problems with this is that the Roman Catholic faith is very dependant upon official statement, and numerous statements regarding evolution have emerged from the Vatican, the most recent of which decries Intelligent Design and YEC-ism as false and foolish. In order for a Roman Catholic to support a young earth, he or she would need to be in disagreement with the Vatican.

 

[Nightson]

One of the problems with this is that the Roman Catholic faith is very dependant upon official statement, and numerous statements regarding evolution have emerged from the Vatican, the most recent of which decries Intelligent Design and YEC-ism as false and foolish. In order for a Roman Catholic to support a young earth, he or she would need to be in disagreement with the Vatican.

Which doesn't mean they don't exist, it just makes them very rare.

 

[JGL53]

One of the problems with this is that the Roman Catholic faith is very dependant upon official statement, and numerous statements regarding evolution have emerged from the Vatican, the most recent of which decries Intelligent Design and YEC-ism as false and foolish. In order for a Roman Catholic to support a young earth, he or she would need to be in disagreement with the Vatican.

Yeah. And the last I heard the same high per cent of RC women in the U.S. use "the pill" as do protestant christian women. I asked a RC friend about this once and she said that her priest told her that if she could use the birth control pill in good conscience and not feel in her heart that it was a sin, then it wasn't a sin - according to RC doctrine that a necessary part of sin is that a person must recognize any act he or she would commit as such before being held accountable.

Whether or not this is a doctrine of the RCC - well, that's pretty unimportant to me - I'm just relating what one person told me. In any case, I think there is much evidence that RCs in the U.S. pretty much ignore the pope on issues wherein they disagree with official church doctrine. This seems pretty irrational to me - but, then, the whole thing seems rather off to me, me being an ex-protestant and present atheist.

 

[Dannager]

Yeah. And the last I heard the same high per cent of RC women in the U.S. use "the pill" as do protestant christian women. I asked a RC friend about this once and she said that her priest told her that if she could use the birth control pill in good conscience and not feel in her heart that it was a sin, then it wasn't a sin - according to RC doctrine that a necessary part of sin is that a person must recognize any act he or she would commit as such before being held accountable.

Whether or not this is a doctrine of the RCC - well, that's pretty unimportant to me - I'm just relating what one person told me. In any case, I think there is much evidence that RCs in the U.S. pretty much ignore the pope on issues wherein they disagree with official church doctrine. This seems pretty irrational to me - but, then, the whole thing seems rather off to me, me being an ex-protestant and present atheist.

Huh, I've never heard the "it's not a sin if you don't feel it's a sin" rule, but I wouldn't put it past the Church. I suppose it is reasonable from a certain standpoint.

Quite frankly, the Roman Catholics I know tend not to take their religion too seriously. God, under Roman Catholic belief, is confined by dogmatic law, papal decree and precedent and is therefore very predictable. Catholicism can be said to be the "law book" version of religion, complete with loopholes, shortcuts and technical nuances. If you've ever seen the movie Dogma, it does a fairly good (if goofy) job of pointing out some such examples.

 

[llDayo]

Yeah. And the last I heard the same high per cent of RC women in the U.S. use "the pill" as do protestant christian women. I asked a RC friend about this once and she said that her priest told her that if she could use the birth control pill in good conscience and not feel in her heart that it was a sin, then it wasn't a sin - according to RC doctrine that a necessary part of sin is that a person must recognize any act he or she would commit as such before being held accountable.

Nothing but the RCC could come up with a way for someone to be able to commit genocide with a free conscious and still think they can get to heaven.

 

[cerad]

Since this has turned into a RCC bashing thread, here is what I find most amusing about the Catholics. Divorce of course is heavily frowned upon by the church. However, if you send the appropiate fee to the Vatican then you get a piece of paper proclaiming that your marriage never happened and is now annulled. Even if you have been married for many years, raised a family and filed your tax returns accordingly, the church will still grant you an annullment upon request. In fact, they will even annull your second marraige. Pretty cool when you think about it.

 

[LittleNipper]

Nope. The YECs will reason that 1. since god's holy book plainly states the earth was created circa 6 thousand years ago and 2. these scientists, in contradiction to god's holy word, claim to have found evidence of human existence on earth 10 or 12 thousand years ago then 3. these scientists are either knowingly or unknowingly doing the work of Satan, are in danger of hellfire for their blasphemy, and need to repent before it is too late.

BTW, are there any RCC members who are YECs? I've never met any - then, again, I live in Mississippi so I don't run into that many RCs.

How does one look at a stone hearth, a few cutting tools, and some charcoal and decide, "Holy cow----this is a 10,000 year old site-----give or take 5000 years..,". huhhh?

 

[Jan87676]

Nope. The YECs will reason that 1. since god's holy book plainly states the earth was created circa 6 thousand years ago .

Where does it say that?

 

[TeddyKGB]

How does one look at a stone hearth, a few cutting tools, and some charcoal and decide, "Holy cow----this is a 10,000 year old site-----give or take 5000 years..,". huhhh?

"Archaeologist" means "one who guesses slightly better than average" in Swahili.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Where does it say that?

It doesn't, but the YEC will claim that it does.

 

[DailyBlessings]

How does one look at a stone hearth, a few cutting tools, and some charcoal and decide, "Holy cow----this is a 10,000 year old site-----give or take 5000 years..,". huhhh?

I realize that you probably aren't really interested, but there are actually several ways that you can get information about dates from a hearth. The first, which is mentioned in the article and is one you are likely familiar with, is radiocarbon dating. Carbon 14, which is found in every living thing, decays at a constant rate of half of it's volume every 5568 years- therefore, one can date any organic material by this method. 10,000 is mid-range, so this date is probably pretty accurate. The charcoal would fall under this category, and if several samples were taken from different places in the hearth, it would establish a range of dates that is fairly certain.

The article then says "other analysis", which could mean a lot of things. Some other ways to get dates from this site:
Archaeomagnetic analysis. When charcoal burns, the particles within it align with magnetic north. Because magnetic north drifts over time, the alignment of the particles can tell us very accurately when the last fire burned, provided there is an undisturbed portion of the hearth.
Thermoluminescence dating. Measurement of light refraction can be used to date fire-cracked rock as described in the article. This isn't a very absolute method, but it could date the site within a thousand years or so.
Geomorphology. A great deal is known about the recent geological history of the Oregon coastline, and coastal areas, being very dynamic in terms of erosion and water level, can yield very detailed knowledge about the time and sequence of events. The depositional environment the site is located in was how they found the site in the first place, and probably establishes an absolute date range that is pretty accurate.

 

[papakapp]

Huh, I've never heard the "it's not a sin if you don't feel it's a sin" rule, but I wouldn't put it past the Church. I suppose it is reasonable from a certain standpoint.

Romans 14:22-23
Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. But he who doubts is condemned if he eats..."


This passage is talking specifically about eating meat, especially meat sacrificed to idols, but the principle at work behind it at least leaves the door open for catholics and the pill thing.

 

[LittleNipper]

"Archaeologist" means "one who guesses slightly better than average" in Swahili.

WELL, I'm glad that guesses count------unless the person happens to be a Creationist.

 

[Caphi]

WELL, I'm glad that guesses count------unless the person happens to be a Creationist.

Oh, no no no. That's what peer review is for. Creationist, Buddhist, or atheist, any research scientist will have to provide not only numbers but documentation so that others can reproduce the experiment. Whether an atheist scientist produces a result of 20000 years and a Creationist one of 5000, or whether it's the other way around, you'll still have others checking the work against theory and against their own experiments. That's how science goes, Nipper. Not merely cooperation, but cross-confirmation.

 

[DailyBlessings]

At any rate, archaeologists don't do a lot of "guessing" where absolute dating is concerned. Usually there is a margin of error involved with a dating method, but we know what the probability of our being wrong is. The site might not be exactly the middle of the proposed range, but it's almost certainly close.

 

[dlamberth]

As I look at YEC stuff and than come across discoveries like this in my home state of Oregon, if I were a YEC, at the very least I'd have to realize that the dating method used to guess the age of the earth from the Bible is off by a at least 50%. Is being off that much considered a good percentage?


.

 

[Elduran]

As I look at YEC stuff and than come across discoveries like this in my home state of Oregon, if I were a YEC, at the very least I'd have to realize that the dating method used to guess the age of the earth from the Bible is off by a at least 50%. Is being off that much considered a good percentage?


.

It would mean a difference in detection reading of 100%. So basically, to be that wrong, you would have to account for half of the C-14 just not being there. Pretty difficuly to explain away by claiming an experimental error, or the like.