More atheist discoveries.

[Job 33:6]

https://bigthink.com/the-past/saudi...Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1632927699

Saudi Arabian stone camels are older than the Pyramids and Stonehenge.

Their research, published in the Journal of Archeological Science earlier this month, claims the sculptures could be anywhere between 7,000 to 8,000 years old.

the archaeologists were able to use optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating to retrace the erosion process back to a point in time when the camels were still more or less untouched.

 

[SkyWriting]

member:Saudi Arabian stone camels are older than the Pyramids and Stonehenge.Their research, published in the Journal of Archeological Science earlier this month, claims the sculptures could be anywhere between 7,000 to 8,000 years old. The archaeologists were able to use optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating to retrace the erosion process back to a point in time when the camels were still more or less untouched.

My camels have accused me of touching them, but the stories are not true.

 

[Dale]

https://bigthink.com/the-past/saudi...Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1632927699

Saudi Arabian stone camels are older than the Pyramids and Stonehenge.

Their research, published in the Journal of Archeological Science earlier this month, claims the sculptures could be anywhere between 7,000 to 8,000 years old.

the archaeologists were able to use optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating to retrace the erosion process back to a point in time when the camels were still more or less untouched.

I hope that creationists realize that this shows that the earth is over 6,000 years old. For that matter, civilization is over 6,000 years old.

In my experience, creationists have a whole spiel ready attacking carbon 14 dating. I hope they realize that this doesn't depend on the carbon 14 method.

 

[chad kincham]

I hope that creationists realize that this shows that the earth is over 6,000 years old. For that matter, civilization is over 6,000 years old.

In my experience, creationists have a whole spiel ready attacking carbon 14 dating. I hope they realize that this doesn't depend on the carbon 14 method.

All forms of radiometric dating are problematic, which I’m sure is news to you - you’ve probably never heard of fractionation in magma chambers, for only one example from this .edu website:

More Bad News for Radiometric Dating

 

[JSRG]

All forms of radiometric dating are problematic, which I’m sure is news to you - you’ve probably never heard of fractionation in magma chambers, for only one example from this .edu website:

More Bad News for Radiometric Dating

It being a ".edu" website means basically nothing when one considers that what you are linking to is a personal page of one of the staff members, not anything published or sanctoned by the university. It means as much as if the person who wrote it put it up on blogspot.

Now, you might say that it's still a staff member of a college that put it up, which could count for something in terms of expertise. But the the person in question is a professor of computer science (as demonstrated by the fact that the URL is from the computer science department), which is unrelated to radiometric dating.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I hope that creationists realize that this shows that the earth is over 6,000 years old. For that matter, civilization is over 6,000 years old.

In my experience, creationists have a whole spiel ready attacking carbon 14 dating. I hope they realize that this doesn't depend on the carbon 14 method.

Unless solar flares caused the objects to accumulate more radiation than scientists anticipated. Then their dating would be off considerably.

 

[Job 33:6]

Unless solar flares caused the objects to accumulate more radiation than scientists anticipated. Then their dating would be off considerably.

Radiometric dating doesn't involve measurement of radiation.

Beyond that, accumulating more C14 would just make an object look young anyway. It wouldn't make objects look older.

 

[Dale]

All forms of radiometric dating are problematic, which I’m sure is news to you - you’ve probably never heard of fractionation in magma chambers, for only one example from this .edu website:

More Bad News for Radiometric Dating

If you read the OP a little more carefully, it doesn't refer to isotope dating or radiometric dating. The stone camels were dated using Optically Stimulated Luminescence, OSL.

Creationists have a whole spiel on carbon 14 dating. However, the age of the earth was never determined by carbon 14 dating. Dinosaur bones were never dated by carbon 14 dating. Carbon 14 dating is only accurate to about 50,000 years in most cases, or possibly 70,000 in some specific cases.

 

[Dale]

Unless solar flares caused the objects to accumulate more radiation than scientists anticipated. Then their dating would be off considerably.

As I told Chad, the stone camels were dated using Optically Stimulated Luminescence, OSL. Radiometric dating wasn't used in this case.

As I said earlier, this shows that groups of people were around with the skills and leisure to carve these stone camels as much as 8,000 years ago. That gives us a minimum age for the earth which is higher than the 6,000 years which many creationists believe in.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Radiometric dating doesn't involve measurement of radiation.

Beyond that, accumulating more C14 would just make an object look young anyway. It wouldn't make objects look older.

Correct me if I’m wrong but if I’m not mistaken both OSL and TLD measure the amount of radiation accumulated in an object over time, not C14 levels. C14 measurements can only be taken from organic objects not inanimate objects. Solar flares increase the amount of radiation doses which makes an object accumulate more radiation making it appear older than it actually is.

 

[BNR32FAN]

As I told Chad, the stone camels were dated using Optically Stimulated Luminescence, OSL. Radiometric dating wasn't used in this case.

As I said earlier, this shows that groups of people were around with the skills and leisure to carve these stone camels as much as 8,000 years ago. That gives us a minimum age for the earth which is higher than the 6,000 years which many creationists believe in.

I could be wrong but I was under the impression that OSL was similar to TLD which measures accumulated radiation in an object.

 

[Job 33:6]

Correct me if I’m wrong but if I’m not mistaken both OSL and TLD measure the amount of radiation accumulated in an object over time, not C14 levels. C14 measurements can only be taken from organic objects not inanimate objects. Solar flares increase the amount of radiation doses which makes an object accumulate more radiation making it appear older than it actually is.

Ah, I thought you were referring to C14 dating.

Regarding solar flares, in order to suggest that such an event occurred that might obscure data, you would have to have evidence for such an event occurring above a background set of data. For example, you could measure a sequence in the environment for anomalies.

In the instance of this research article, the researchers also used radiocarbon dating to confirm thermoluminescence results. All radiocarbon dates were also roughly 7,000 to 8,000 years old.

 

[Dale]

Correct me if I’m wrong but if I’m not mistaken both OSL and TLD measure the amount of radiation accumulated in an object over time, not C14 levels. C14 measurements can only be taken from organic objects not inanimate objects. Solar flares increase the amount of radiation doses which makes an object accumulate more radiation making it appear older than it actually is.

Optically Stimulated Luminescence, OSL, measures the time since a material has been exposed to sunlight. You could say that it measures the length of time that a stone has been in the dark. That would tell us how long it has been since it was buried.

You mention solar flares. Solar flares are the result of sunspot activity. A solar flare is basically an outpouring of protons from the sun, which creates electromagnetic disturbances on earth when they hit the earth's magnetic field. The key point is that a solar flare doesn't change the luminosity of the sun. Since solar flares don't measurably change the intensity of sunlight, I don't think they would change the background of an OSL reading.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Optically Stimulated Luminescence, OSL, measures the time since a material has been exposed to sunlight. You could say that it measures the length of time that a stone has been in the dark. That would tell us how long it has been since it was buried.

You mention solar flares. Solar flares are the result of sunspot activity. A solar flare is basically an outpouring of protons from the sun, which creates electromagnetic disturbances on earth when they hit the earth's magnetic field. The key point is that a solar flare doesn't change the luminosity of the sun. Since solar flares don't measurably change the intensity of sunlight, I don't think they would change the background of an OSL reading.

By measuring the amount of trapped electrons in the object that’s the exact same things as measuring it’s radioactivity just like thermoluminescence. Solar flares give off increased doses of radiation that directly affect both OSL and TL dating methods.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Ah, I thought you were referring to C14 dating.

Regarding solar flares, in order to suggest that such an event occurred that might obscure data, you would have to have evidence for such an event occurring above a background set of data. For example, you could measure a sequence in the environment for anomalies.

In the instance of this research article, the researchers also used radiocarbon dating to confirm thermoluminescence results. All radiocarbon dates were also roughly 7,000 to 8,000 years old.

C14 production has been increasing since carbon dating was first discovered in the 1940s and carbon dating has been known to be off but several thousands of years on many occasions. There are literally hundreds of carbon dating results that have been proven to be inaccurate. In one case trees planted in the 80s tested as being thousands of years old. The problem with all of these dating methods is they are all dependent upon assuming that the current state of carbon 14 increase and radiation exposure are constant which they’re not. Everyone knows that C14 production is greatly influenced by the Earth’s electromagnetic field which is greatly influenced by solar winds and the solar magnetic field which we know to be inconstant.

 

[BNR32FAN]

In the instance of this research article, the researchers also used radiocarbon dating to confirm thermoluminescence results. All radiocarbon dates were also roughly 7,000 to 8,000 years old.

I’m not sure how they could conduct carbon testing on stone since carbon testing can only be done on organic objects like plant & animal remains.

 

[Dale]

By measuring the amount of trapped electrons in the object that’s the exact same things as measuring it’s radioactivity just like thermoluminescence. Solar flares give off increased doses of radiation that directly affect both OSL and TL dating methods.

BNR: "Solar flares give off increased doses of radiation that directly affect both OSL and TL dating methods."

You seem to have a hazy idea of what radiation is. Could you tell us what you think radiation is?

A "trapped electron," or excited electron, is not radioactivity.

 

[Job 33:6]

I’m not sure how they could conduct carbon testing on stone since carbon testing can only be done on organic objects like plant & animal remains.

You have to read the paper to see. It answers that very question.

 

[Job 33:6]

You have to read the paper to see. It answers that very question.

 

[BNR32FAN]

BNR: "Solar flares give off increased doses of radiation that directly affect both OSL and TL dating methods."

You seem to have a hazy idea of what radiation is. Could you tell us what you think radiation is?

A "trapped electron," or excited electron, is not radioactivity.

Both OSL and TLD testing release the trapped electrons which gives off radiation. That’s what they are measuring. Here’s a video explaining how OSL works. Skip to 9 minutes into the video to avoid her whole biography. That’s where she explains how OSL works.