Origin of humans on the Earth

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by Saint, Dec 18, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    Something that you are very likely not familiar with is that Carbon-dating is only one of many dozens of techniques used to determine prehistoric ages.
    Each technique on its own provides some peices of the puzzle, but it's the corroboration between all the pieces that makes our dating robust.

    No one piece is depended upon solely. It is the preponderance of evidence that gives us the confidence in the prehistoric timeline.


    Like a matchstick table made of only one matchstick would simply fall over. But thirty or forty matchsticks, all independent, but all supporting each other, will make a table robust enough to support an encyclopedia.

    Geologic records, tree rings, rock striations, pollen sampling, magnetic sampling and dozens of other methods of dating corroborate that our understanding of carbon-dating is reliable and sufficiently accurate to date things.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Saint Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,752
    The scientist never explain how they get the XXXXXX years dating.
    They simply report the object they study can be dated hundreds thousands ago.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,864
    That's because they aren't employed to educate you. The net has that information. If you don't use it before complaining you are committing an act of willful ignorance.
     
    Michael 345 likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Of course they do.
    This from the wiki page on carbon dating:

    The method was developed in the late 1940s at the University of Chicago by Willard Libby, who received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work in 1960. It is based on the fact that radiocarbon (14C) is constantly being created in the atmosphere by the interaction of cosmic rays with atmospheric nitrogen. The resulting 14C combines with atmospheric oxygen to form radioactive carbon dioxide, which is incorporated into plants by photosynthesis; animals then acquire 14C by eating the plants. When the animal or plant dies, it stops exchanging carbon with its environment, and from that point onwards the amount of 14C it contains begins to decrease as the 14C undergoes radioactive decay. Measuring the amount of 14C in a sample from a dead plant or animal such as a piece of wood or a fragment of bone provides information that can be used to calculate when the animal or plant died. The older a sample is, the less 14C there is to be detected, and because the half-life of 14C (the period of time after which half of a given sample will have decayed) is about 5,730 years, the oldest dates that can be reliably measured by this process date to around 50,000 years ago, although special preparation methods occasionally permit accurate analysis of older samples.
     
    Michael 345 likes this.
  8. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    You mean they don't explain it in baby-talk every single time a date is mentioned in some context. Or they explain it briefly while you're making popcorn. Or you just don't listen.
    Or you ignore all the informative responses ^^^^^^^ to your question.
    Dating methods for fossils are not a secret. Anybody who wants to know can find out.
     
  9. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,864
    I think he meant "explained in ways that I could easily debunk." Not having an education gets people in that position.
     
  10. Saint Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,752
    scientist can just bullshit, fabricate data,
    simply said millions years ago and so on.
     
  11. Saint Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,752
    science also got scam, like the Korean professor bullshit on stem cell research.
     
  12. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    Yes, they can, just a religionists and politicians and salesmen can.
    Do you think all of scientists are bullshitting all of the time?
    Do you think all science is one big scam?
    'Cos, in that case, I wouldn't get on an elevator or in a car or plug in a lamp, or... well, basically, live in the modern world at all, since everything that touches you is a product of science and might disintegrate or blow up or something.
     
  13. geordief Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,118
    Thanks for the heads up

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Any idea how many places yet to be dug up ?
    The point is new discoveries are only dependant on where you look for them.
    Out of Africa can quickly turn into Out of Greenland or Out of a submerged legendary Atlantis for all we know. Just a matter of looking i guess...and there's a hell of a lot of terrain to cover, and then some.

    Newsflash: year 2200 - Ancient human bones discovered on the moon. (Or Mars etc...) lol
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2019
  15. Saint Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,752
    Scientists please tell us how they can date to millions or even billions years, where is the evidence in lab to indicate that?
     
  16. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,864
    Your record is scratched.
     
    sideshowbob and Michael 345 like this.
  17. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Why do you ask for evidence? You will just deny it, since it won't support your preconceived notions.
     
  18. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    They have. Over and over. You don't listen.
     
  19. geordief Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,118
    And that is based on evidence

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    btw what got Saint responding to posts? It used to be a rarity(thought she was a bot actually)
     
  20. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    But science is self-correcting. If one scientist is a scammer there are a hundred who are eager to expose the scam.

    On the other hand, anti-science people like you repeat the same scams over and over again.
     
  21. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,864
    Saint fails to understand the need for reproducible results. I remember back in the '80s when some guy came up with table-top fission.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    Why would Saint need reproducible results? His God already told him everything he needs to know.
     
  23. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Of course they can. So can you. But when it comes down to who to believe, I know who I am going to go with.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page