What a willfully ignorant statement.There is no fact of a settelment between 27,000 and 20,000 BC
All containing atoms (or parts of atoms) created in 4004 BC.What a willfully ignorant statement.
The site contains fired clay fragments which are dated using thermoluminescence.
The dates obtained from the fragments is consistent with the radiocarbon dating of human remains and charcoal at the site.
Thermoluminescence dating provides independent verification of the radiocarbon dating.
You disagree with what I said about facts?What a willfully ignorant statement.
The site contains fired clay fragments which are dated using thermoluminescence.
The dates obtained from the fragments is consistent with the radiocarbon dating of human remains and charcoal at the site.
Thermoluminescence dating provides independent verification of the radiocarbon dating.
I reject or accept the evidence once I have been able to fully understand the data and how the conclusions were made.In other words this is an exercise in confirmation bias where you reject or accept the evidence depending on the narrative and not the science.
The human remains and the charcoal were carbon dated to the same to time?What evidence do you refute? Artifacts? Archaeology? Something else?
Artifacts from Dolní Vestonice
Radiocarbon dates on the human remains and charcoal recovered from hearths range between 31,383-30,869 calibrated radiocarbon years before the present (cal BPDolni Vestonice - Upper Paleolithic Site in the Czech RepublicThe human remains and the charcoal were carbon dated to the same to time?
Yeah pull the other leg.I reject or accept the evidence once I have been able to fully understand the data and how the conclusions were made.
Well lets take a look at this list.All containing atoms (or parts of atoms) created in 4004 BC.
Sorry you have lost me.You disagree with what I said about facts?
If I had a candle that would take 30,000 years to burn out, but I lit it 6000 years ago, what's that tell you?Care to explain why the upper limit is not 6000 years for all the dating techniques and how do Uranium-Lead and Magnetostratigraphy work when their lower limits exceed 6000 years?
Where as evidence or "facts" cannot a prove a theory it can be used to disprove it or in this case belief systems such as YEC.Post 697
It tells me you haven’t addressed the upper limit at all; in fact you have opened up a Pandora’s box for YEC namely the speed of light.If I had a candle that would take 30,000 years to burn out, but I lit it 6000 years ago, what's that tell you?
You didn’t address the lower limit either; if creationism occurred 6000 years ago how does Uranium-Lead and Magnetostratigraphy work when their lower limits exceed 6000 years?So we have elements that have a half-life of 30,000 years.
Big deal.
They'll never react (or halve, or change, or step down, or whatever you call it).
Last thursdayismWell lets take a look at this list.
Care to explain why the upper limit is not 6000 years for all the dating techniques and how do Uranium-Lead and Magnetostratigraphy work when their lower limits exceed 6000 years?
Of courseWhere as evidence or "facts" cannot a prove a theory it can be used to disprove it or in this case belief systems such as YEC.
The claim the universe and earth are 6000 years old is clearly refuted by the evidence obtained from cosmology, astrophysics, physics, geology and archaeology.
As I mentioned to AV last thursdayism would result in the upper limit for all dating methods to be no older than 6000 years old.Last thursdayism
Of course
Pb-Pb dating is the method used.
Chondrules and calcium–aluminium-rich inclusions (CAIs) are spherical particles that make up chondritic meteorites and are believed to be the oldest objects in the solar system. Hence precise dating of these objects is important to constrain the early evolution of the solar system and the age of the earth. The U–Pb dating method can yield the most precise ages for early solar-system objects due to the optimal half-life of 238U. However, the absence of zircon or other uranium-rich minerals in chondrites, and the presence of initial non-radiogenic Pb (common Pb), rules out direct use of the U-Pb concordia method. Therefore, the most precise dating method for these meteorites is the Pb–Pb method, which allows a correction for common Pb.[3]
U-Th dating of carbonate crusts reveals Neandertal origin of Iberian cave art?
I accept historically dated events understanding that the further you go back in recorded history the less accurate they are. But I accept that Germany invaded Poland in 1939. No additional proof is necessary. The recorded history speaks itself. Recorded history does not rely on assumptions and unknowns. Science, especially without recorded History, heavily relies on assumptions and unknowns. It’s basically useless without recorded history to confirm the resultsYeah pull the other leg.
Recall your post in another thread where you accepted the dates quoted.
The dating techniques are exactly the same which you are querying in this thread.
Writing inscriptions on bone are radiocarbon dated, on fired clay tablets they are thermoluminescence dated.
You are only interested in the final result, if the date exceeds 6000 years old the dating technique must be wrong, if less it must be right.
No analysis or understanding is required on your part.
I accept historically dated events understanding that the further you go back in recorded history the less accurate they are. But I accept that Germany invaded Poland in 1939. No additional proof is necessary. The recorded history speaks itself. Recorded history does not rely on assumptions and unknowns. Science, especially without recorded History, heavily relies on assumptions and unknowns. It’s basically useless without recorded history to confirm the results
You assume the accuracy of the historicalI accept historically dated events understanding that the further you go back in recorded history the less accurate they are. But I accept that Germany invaded Poland in 1939. No additional proof is necessary. The recorded history speaks itself. Recorded history does not rely on assumptions and unknowns. Science, especially without recorded History, heavily relies on assumptions and unknowns. It’s basically useless without recorded history to confirm the results
I accept historically dated events understanding that the further you go back in recorded history the less accurate they are. But I accept that Germany invaded Poland in 1939. No additional proof is necessary. The recorded history speaks itself. Recorded history does not rely on assumptions and unknowns. Science, especially without recorded History, heavily relies on assumptions and unknowns. It’s basically useless without recorded history to confirm the results
And who records "History" the officialNo, recorded history does not speak for itself. And actually, the further back we go, the more that "recorded history" DOES rely on assumptions, unknowns, interpretions and guesses (however educatedly they are arrived at by the modern historian ...)
That's just the representational nature of human writing about the past. We just have to deal with it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?