10,000 year old site in Oregon found

[Astrid]

Do you expect that Moses should’ve written that the earth is X amount of years old? That number would be incorrect the very next year. The genealogies not only provide us with the age of the earth but also a timeline of when certain events took place and when key figures lived. It’s a much more efficient way of giving a timeline.

Of what use is a timeline that gives a wholly false result?

 

[Astrid]

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?

Nobody does that.

Posting a false narrative to mock others
may be contrary to Christian ethics.

What do you think?


Did you a book at a book and determine
it is holy, and, 100% true and accurate?

 

[AV1611VET]

Now, you tell me, how does one look at a book and determine it is holy, and, 100% true and accurate?

There's a burning that takes place.

Luke 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

 

[mindlight]

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.

There is no evidence to support the assumption of constant C-14 decay rates particularly if one assumes supernatural intervention is a feature of the universe. Thermoluminescence Dating is similarly undermined by the possibility of environmental changes over time. Creationists approach Geomorphology from the perspective that a global flood occurred and so from a completely different set of assumptions about the data.

At the end of the day, you are staring at some worn-out relics and speculating.

 

[mindlight]

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.

Peer reviews of evidence at a distance of millennia. Neither "team" was there, and neither can speak with any authority of what lies between then and now.

 

[Astrophile]

I think the reason we Christians get accused of trying to get our "religion" in the public schools is because atheists & evolutionists tried to get their doctrine into the public schools and eventually succeeded.

Evolution is a scientific theory, not a religious doctrine. That is why it should be taught in schools. Most Christians accept the evidence for evolution.

 

[Astrophile]

Relative dating and Carbon dating have their flaws and limitations.


Okay. Thanks for sharing your feelings.

Ever since the 1950s, U-Pb dating of terrestrial rocks and meteorites has consistently yielded ages in the range 4550±50 million years for the solar system (including the Earth). Would you like to explain how it has managed to do this if it is as flawed as you say.

 

[Astrophile]

There is no evidence to support the assumption of constant C-14 decay rates particularly if one assumes supernatural intervention is a feature of the universe.

First, scientists have subjected radioactive elements to extremes of temperature, pressure, magnetic fields, etc. far beyond those that occur in the Earth's crust, without producing any change in their decay rates. These experiments have provided the evidence that you require to support the assumption of constant decay rates.

Second, can you provide the evidence for supernatural intervention? Without this evidence, your assumption is worthless.

 

[Astrophile]

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.

Strictly speaking, carbon-14 decays at a constant rate of half of its number of atoms every 5568 years.

 

[mindlight]

First, scientists have subjected radioactive elements to extremes of temperature, pressure, magnetic fields, etc. far beyond those that occur in the Earth's crust, without producing any change in their decay rates. These experiments have provided the evidence that you require to support the assumption of constant decay rates.

Second, can you provide the evidence for supernatural intervention? Without this evidence, your assumption is worthless.

Miracles happen everyday.

 

[CoreyD]

Ever since the 1950s, U-Pb dating of terrestrial rocks and meteorites has consistently yielded ages in the range 4550±50 million years for the solar system (including the Earth). Would you like to explain how it has managed to do this if it is as flawed as you say.

If you provide the data, I'd be happy to show you.

Edit @Astrophile
I found an article that's in line with your comment.
How Old Is Earth and How Did Scientists Figure It Out?
Radiometric dating is a powerful scientific method used to determine the age of the Earth and various geological materials with remarkable precision. The fundamental principle behind radiometric dating lies in the decay of radioactive elements found in rocks and minerals. Certain naturally occurring radioactive elements, known as parent isotopes, undergo spontaneous decay over time into stable isotopes, referred to as daughter isotopes. By measuring the ratio of parent to daughter isotopes in a sample, scientists can calculate the time elapsed since the material's initial formation.

Of course, you are not dealing with Carbon 14 dating here, but there are some basic principles involved in all Radiometric dating. One of them is the problem with assumptions.
Assuming that the number of daughter isotopes is known, and that no radioactive elements have been added to, or been taken away from the daughter isotopes.
There is also the assumption that the decay rate has never changed, but always remained constant... when in fact radioactive decay rates may not be constant.

Spoiler: Extract

It's impossible to predict exactly when a given atom of a substance will emit a particular particle, but the decay rate itself over a long period of time is constant.

Or, at least, that's what we thought. But if physicists at Stanford and Purdue are correct in their findings, the whole theory of constant radioactive decay rates could be thrown out the door.

The story begins, as scientific discoveries often do, randomly. Literally, in this case. The team of physicists was investigating the possibility of using radioactive decay rates to generate random numbers, since the rate is constant but the emission of individual atoms is unpredictable, it seemed like a perfect fit.

Then came the problem:

As the researchers pored through published data on specific isotopes, they found disagreement in the measured decay rates – odd for supposed physical constants.
Checking data collected at Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island and the Federal Physical and Technical Institute in Germany, they came across something even more surprising: long-term observation of the decay rate of silicon-32 and radium-226 seemed to show a small seasonal variation. The decay rate was ever so slightly faster in winter than in summer.

Was this fluctuation real, or was it merely a glitch in the equipment used to measure the decay, induced by the change of seasons, with the accompanying changes in temperature and humidity?

As it turns out, they probably aren't.

Concerning Uranium–lead dating... Aside from the assumptions involved, being incorrect...

In a paper published this week in Science, geochemist Roland Mundil of the Berkeley Geochronology Center (BGC) and his colleagues at BGC and UC Berkeley report that uranium/lead (U/Pb) dating can be extremely accurate - to within 250,000 years - but only if the zircons from volcanic ash used in the analysis are specially treated. To date, zircons - known to many as a semiprecious stone and December's birthstone - have often produced confusing and inaccurate results.
Uranium/lead dating provides most accurate date yet for Earth's largest extinction
Zircons have produced complicated data that are hard to interpret, though people have pulled dates out," said Mundil, a former UC Berkeley postdoctoral fellow now at the BGC, a non-profit scientific research institute dedicated to perfecting dating techniques for establishing the history of Earth and life on Earth. "Many of these studies will now have to be redone."

The U/Pb isotopic dating technique has been critical in dating geologic events more than 100 million years old, including volcanic eruptions, continental movements and mass extinctions.


I often ask persons who are so cocksure, what they would say to someone whom they argued strongly against, for the "science being right", if years later, the science said they were wrong... by far.
The response is usually, :That's how science works.", but no one ever says, "Well yes. We could be wrong. It's not a case of what we think, or believe, being right. It's a case of proving, or testing if what we believe is wrong, and sometimes it takes years before that may happen."