Page 4 of 8
Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 4:48 pm
by Beagle
Thank you Cogs, I'll give both of those links a good study. I have read the other things that you mention, and I essentially understand them. I feel like we're on the verge of a brand new perspective, and hopefully the C14 dating will be replaced by tests that are more reliable.
I've put everything on the back burner for a while just to stay up to speed with the Comet theory. There's a lot to read and mull over. And, as you say, the theory seems to have it's shortcomings. We shall see.
C14
Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 5:18 pm
by Cognito
This will put a lot of doubt on those C14 “holy opinions”
The other technologies will have to be considered as equal.
I agree that the C14 dates don't appear to be very reliable. Every few years someone comes out with a new table. Actually, I'm thinking of that statement from
Pirates of the Caribbean that "the Pirate's Code is really just a set of guidelines" and not to be taken verbatim.
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 6:48 am
by Charlie Hatchett
Here's a cool illustration Jacques Cinq-Mars posted on his site:
http://www.anst.uu.se/maabl971/wiggles/C14decay.html
If there were an increase of 14C (or decrease in 12C) in the local atmosphere, which was uncounted for in a particular analysis, then the results would indicate an unrealistically young date.
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 7:37 am
by Forum Monk
Or unrealistically old, depending on which isotope is out of proportion.
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 11:05 am
by Charlie Hatchett
Forum Monk wrote:Or unrealistically old, depending on which isotope is out of proportion.
Right.
If more 14C or less 12C than expected is in the specimen when it died, then an unrealistically young result is obtained. Hence our ability to obtain finite 14C dating results on Permian and Carboniferous samples:
Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).
Conversely, if less 14C or more 12C than expected is in the sample when it died, then unrealistically old dates are obtained.
The following paper describes many Precambrian samples that have provided finite results:
http://icr.org/pdf/research/RATE_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 12:54 pm
by Minimalist
Ancient tree rings have allowed scientists to calibrate the carbon-14 clock back to 9400 B.C. The layered growth of coral reefs pushes the calibration back another 12,000 years, but runs into another problem. Deep ocean waters dilute the carbon-14 levels, making reefs seem older than they are.
Cores taken from Suigetsu's lake bottom avoid that problem. Counting the thin white layers of dead algae, each less than a millimeter thick, gave the researchers the year, which could then be compared to the date obtained by carbon dating, back to 43,000 B.C.
If you find a HSS or HE bone from 43,000 BC in Texas, I'd settle. Close enough for government work, as we always used to say!
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 1:00 pm
by Charlie Hatchett
Minimalist wrote:
Ancient tree rings have allowed scientists to calibrate the carbon-14 clock back to 9400 B.C. The layered growth of coral reefs pushes the calibration back another 12,000 years, but runs into another problem. Deep ocean waters dilute the carbon-14 levels, making reefs seem older than they are.
Cores taken from Suigetsu's lake bottom avoid that problem. Counting the thin white layers of dead algae, each less than a millimeter thick, gave the researchers the year, which could then be compared to the date obtained by carbon dating, back to 43,000 B.C.
If you find a HSS or HE bone from 43,000 BC in Texas, I'd settle. Close enough for government work, as we always used to say!
Right, I'm not about to split hairs!
However, with the new 14C error problems being uncovered, it seems U-Series and other methods (Ar/Ar, TL, etc...) are looking like better dating options.
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 1:05 pm
by Minimalist
Sure, it's important to remember that C14 is now 60 year old technology which is three lifetimes in science.
It still seems good enough for relatively recent dates (up to 10,000 BC), though.
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 1:13 pm
by Charlie Hatchett
Minimalist wrote:Sure, it's important to remember that C14 is now 60 year old technology which is three lifetimes in science.
It still seems good enough for relatively recent dates (up to 10,000 BC), though.
I don't know, Min. Al at Topper got ca. 8500 B.P. dates from the Clovis strata. I think that might be one of the reasons why he's somewhat behind this new impact theory.
I need to find the reference reporting those dates.
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 5:21 pm
by kbs2244
Boy, am I glad I stirred this pot.
It opens up all kinds of things to question.
Anyone what to take on humans hunting dinosaurs?
Or the dates of the Norse settlements in New Found land?
Or how old the Newport Tower is?
What about Cahokia and Poverty Point?
Maybe the “Stonehenge’s” of South America?
Or the canal system across Florida from ft Myers to Miami?
Or the human remains found in the tide lands around Houston, Tex.
Or…or….or…or…
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 5:51 pm
by Charlie Hatchett
It's obvious we're gonna need to move on to more stable dating methods.
Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 4:25 am
by Essan
Charlie Hatchett wrote:Minimalist wrote:So how come the geneticists claim the 'bottleneck' occured 60,000 years earlier because of the Toba eruption?
Good question. If an impact like the one we're discussing set the Northern Hemisphere on fire, would that increase 12C levels. If so, then any 14C/12C ratios would indicate a date greater than the "true" date. The smaller the ratio, the older the indicated date. Someone check my logic. This stuff is confusing.
I wonder how Uranium-series dating compares to 14C dating in the 60K range?
The 'Toba' bottleneck is derived from DNA studies - not carbon dating.
However, the vast majority of the human population at the time of the supposed impact would have been living in the mid latitudes and tropics - Africa, Middle East, SE Asia etc so even if a local extinction occurred it wouldn't necessarily show up as a genetic bottleneck.
(Not that I believe anything quite so catastrophic occurred anyway
)
Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 6:31 am
by Rokcet Scientist
Minimalist wrote:
If you find a HSS or HE bone from 43,000 BC in Texas, I'd settle. Close enough for government work, as we always used to say!
"Close enough for government work"?
It seems a Texan HE took that literally and moved into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue...
Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 7:30 am
by Charlie Hatchett
The 'Toba' bottleneck is derived from DNA studies - not carbon dating.
Thanks for the clarification, Andy.
BTW, did you develop this site: Ukweatherworld. I'm a weather enthusiast.
Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 8:43 am
by Essan
Charlie Hatchett wrote:The 'Toba' bottleneck is derived from DNA studies - not carbon dating.
Thanks for the clarification, Andy.
BTW, did you develop this site: Ukweatherworld. I'm a weather enthusiast.
I co-own it
I shall expect to see you posting there soon! We have a good mix of professionals, knowledgeable amateurs (or, in my case, semi-knowledgeable
and people who just like snow and thunderstorms.
btw not been on here for a while because of changes to computers and subsequent 'loss' of all my bookmarks - which I'm gradually recreating again.