Chicken Bones Suggest Polynesians Found Americas Before Columbus
 

Draw your own conclusions:

http://www.livescience.com/history/0...n_chicken.html

Don't let SU see this. He will go ballistic.

??? Is "he" anti-science, ergo anti-reason, logic, truth and evolution?

He will suspect that you are using the article to prove Mormonism true. and then he will have a stroke.

I don't put a lot of stock into carbon dating. How do they even know that carbon was decomposing at the same rate back then as it does now?

Why wouldn't it?

Furthermore, it has been calibrated many, many times.

What is the issue with carbon dating?

I know it is reasonably reliable, although some years ago I remember reading something about some issues of reliability. As I understand it, for about 10,000 years on it, it is reasonably reliable, but outside of that, it may not be as reliable.

Well why would it? The atmosphere was different, the whole make up of the Earth was supposedly different back in the day, yet everything still decomposed at the same rate. Seems like a bit of a stretch imo...and how would they possibly be able to determine such a thing?

Well, you could take organic samples from ancient items where the age can be determined via other means (wood from a ship or building from a particular period, old paper with dates, human remains from a dated burial mound, etc.) and run a carbon dating analysis to verify the accuracy. That is what I mean by calibration. From what I understand, it shows some scatter but it is reasonably accurate. Certainly gives you a good ballpark estimate of the age.

Yes but if the accuracy is only "reasonable" for time periods for which you can actually find dated materials, how can you assume that it's accurate for items even older. You personally are free to trust carbon dating, for myself I remain very skeptical. Anything beyond a couple of hundred years old and I think you're pretty much just making educated guesses.

This article summarizes the arguments used by Biblical literalists to critique carbon dating.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...bon_dating.asp

Clearly this is not a scientific source. However it is my understanding that scientists are largely satisfied with the radiocarbon approach, and take measures to accommodate for weaknesses in the method. The argument against carbon dating is primarily ad hoc, AFAIK.

But there are lots of dated materials that are thousands of years old.

By reasonable, I mean that it won't give you exact date and time, but the margin of error is reasonably small. Certainly small enough that it is far better than what I would call an "educated guess".

I don't believe anybody is using a date certain with carbon dating, but people believe the ranges are reasonable based on scientific principles.

Are you disputing the precision of carbon dating or its range specificity?

Yeah read the article that Barbara posted. It's these admitted anomalies that pretty much rattle my faith in the whole process. I'm sticking with educated guess.

Range specificity, I have no expectation that they're actually attempting to nail down one firm year. I'm not convinced that time even elapsed at the same rate today as it did a couple thousand years ago. I take carbon dating to be a probable theory depending on how old they're trying to claim something to be. The older they claim the artifact to be, the less trusting I become of carbon dating.

Are you trying to be funny?

Mike, why don't you start a forum called "Book of Mormon scientific proofs" where articles about Thor Hyerdal and ancient chicken bones in the Americas and such can be posted.

What's your point? Do you claim the earth is 6,000 years old? Is that it?

Sounds like someone has had a rough day today?

I don't know how old the earth is, and I'm quite certain that you don't either. How is that relevant to this conversation?

WHy does this tend to prove mormonism? Hagoth went the other way, didn't he?

The reason people such as the article Barbara posted contrive arguments against carbon dating is to try to support the Biblical timeline.

Again, why is this relevant? I haven't said anything about the Bible.

We all know you are a bitter apostate that clings to science as evidence that Mormonism is all a crock. I don't think there's a soul on here that isn't well aware of where you stand on this issue. That being the case, there's no need for you to turn an unrelated discussion into a stage for your personal issues with religion.

What are your conclusions?

I'm sorry you think I'm bitter. Others here have told me I exhibit a fine sense of humor here.

You seem bitter about science. Do you reject carbon dating because it's science? Why do you think you have license to critique carbon dating employing the scientific method in doing so?

Do you think this evidence does or does not have a tendecny to prove mormonism? I think it is interesting, but it seems ot show very little beyond supporting the sometimes hard to believe tales of ancient polynesian open ocean sailing feats.

Fine sense of humor...yeah, not so much. Every post I read (and I'm willing to admit that I don't read many of them anymore) of yours has been, imo, designed to lure people into trying to prove to you that the church is true. In fact, similar to what I'm experiencing in this thread when out of the blue comes this accusation about the Earth being 6K years old. What if I'd said yes? You would've loved that. It would have given you all kinds of license to turn this into a "look at the idiot Mormon that has deluded herself into believing crazy things that science disproves" thread.

Because I don't put much stock in carbon dating I'm now bitter about all science? That's quite a bit of stretching you're doing there.

I think I've been clear about why I don't trust carbon dating. Why don't you go back and read through the thread, and if you have any specific questions you'd like to ask, perhaps I can answer them for you.

Dude, I don't know you personally and I generally try to avoid attacking other posters. The being said, I think you are a complete asshole based on the persona you portray on this board. Your constant bashing of, snide remarks abouts, and underhanded digs at religion/faith/mormonism are getting rather old. BDB doesn't need me to defend her nor did she ask me to but I'll go ahead and do it:

Nowhere did BDB claim that the earth is 6,000 years old. She expressed some skepticism (of which you are a big proponent when it suits your purposes) about RCD and about its accuracy as the objects in question get older and older.

Unless I'm mistaken, the maximum radiocarbon age limit is somewhere around 60K years at which point you can't distinguish between the carbon decay in the object and that of background radiation. Thus, BDB's skepticism about RCD in general, while not pertinent to the chicken bones discussed in this thread, is not entirely unfounded or unreasonable.

The bottom line is that scientists rely on faith just like other people do. Only with scientists it's not faith in supernatural stuff - it's faith in their framework: faith in theories, hypotheses, logic, and their own judgement. No, I don't think RCD is wrong or unreliable or completely inaccurate. I don't think science is evil and I don't believe the earth is 6,000 years old. That being said, I don't treat someone that is expressing polite skepticism about a specific scientfic precept as kooky or whacko or silly or a nut or a moron or completely ignorant/stupid/uneducated.

If your goal is to educate/enlighten you would be much more effective if you condescended from your lofty position every once in a while and tried to talk to people on their own terms, tried to understand what they are saying, and tried to value them as individuals even though they may not think like you do. As it is, your general assholiness seems to get in the way and makes me not want to listen to anything you have to say.

I'm not sure what Mormonism is anymore. I'm not sure Mormonism knows. For example, it doesn't tend to prove all aborigines are descendants of a sixth century B.C. Jew. If you keep diminishing what the Book of Mormon is supposed to be pretty soon there's not much left to analyze is there. The incredibly shrinking book.

This is a common misconception, self-delusion or disingenuous statement depending on how informed is the speaker. Anyone makes this assertion loses all credibility with me.

Did someone have a bad day in court?

I didn't diminish Mormonism, althouh you tried to (again). Your image of it may be diminsihed by this evidence, but mine isn't.

What a suprise. Didn't see that one coming.

That is a foolish and short-sighted conclsuion without considering context and purpose, but it does let you ignore what else he said.

A typical SU answer - "anyone that doesn't think like me is self-delusional or disingenuous". No attempt to explain why or how it is a misconception. No attempt to find common ground or understand where the other person is coming from. No attempt to address any other arguments or aspects of my post. Your powers of persuasion are staggering.

If I have no credibility then feel free to put me on ignore.

I'm out.

BFM

Seattle, rather than go after Mike for a link to an article that he didn't post, why don't you enlighten us as to why you think that old chicken bones are a bunch of crap?

I know, I know. You have no interest in discussing something that may prove you wrong.

Wow. That's a fascinating article. If you are using a global flood to buttress your argument about a scientific point, you know you are really stretching. These folks make the FARMS crowd look like Nobel Prize winners.

That's what I grew up with. Nice, huh? :)

Edit: Incidentally, I generally try to post authoritative, unbiased sources. But where the argument against carbon dating is concerned, I couldn't find any unbiased sources.

What about wikipedia? :)

Dangit. Did I forget to search wikipedia again? I don't know what's gotten into me.

Actually, now I'm curious. I wonder if wikipedia even lists the criticism of carbon dating.

Look creekster, as I'm sure you know, religious people saying scientists engage in a faith of their own is tired and meaningless cant. Faith is not part of scientists' lexicon, not part of their dicipline. It's tiresome to see religious people force feeding that word to them. Sceintists most emphatically reject the notion that as scientists they rely on faith, and they have plenty of self-awarenes and in terms of their work they are not charlatans. Scientific study has plenty of fruits to show for itself.

Yes, scientific hypotheses and theories are fraught with uncertainties. That is what science is all about. But scientists do not respond to uncertainty with faith in any shape or form. People who claim that are invariably not scientists (we have two real scietists here that I know of and neither would claim that scientists employ a kind of religious-like faith) and are either uninformed or pushing an agenda.

Scientists respond to uncertainty by investigating phenomena and acquiring new kowledge through a rigorous, highly disciplined methodology involving , among other things, gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to specific principles of reasoning. Also by these techniques previous data is corrected and integrated.

It's not faith goddamnit. It just isn't. Scientists don't think it is. So why do religious people try tell them it is? Because those who do it ultimately don't place a high intrinsic value on truth. And that's what pisses me off in the final analysis.

You're now kidding right? Or rather perhaps I should wright the reason you contrive arguments is to support your view of the world and disdain of Mormon faith to mask your guilt and longing for peace of mind when you actively engaged the spirit.

It's tiresome for you to hear people of faith force feeding something in which they believe to be true?

We know how you feel, Seattle.