Discussion in 'Members' Lounge' started by pissedoffsol, Oct 27, 2004.
that sure sounds scientific.
sorry, but i don't buy carbon dating. it's been shown to be completely inaccurate after a few thousands years.
"The best-known absolute dating technique is carbon-14 dating, which archaeologists prefer to use. However, the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, so the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years."
Hell, there's even this guy, who's a creationist (what, are we living in the 1800's?), who speaks for the accuracy of carbon dating: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/carbon.html
i've read that climatic changes can severely affect what we think was normal c14 levels at a set date in the past.
To know if carbon dating is accurate, we would have to know how much carbon was in the atmosphere in the beginning, and also how long it has been increasing, or decreasing. Since no one was there, no one knows for sure.
Living penguins have been carbon dated and the results said that they had died 8,000 years ago! This is just one of many inaccurate dates given by Carbon dating
The shells of living mollusks have been dated using the carbon 14 method, only to find that the method gave it a date as having been dead for 23,000 years!
The body of a seal that had been dead for 30 years was carbon dated, and the results stated that the seal had died 4,600 years ago!
What about a freshly killed seal? Well, they dated one of those too, the results stated that the seal had died 1,300 years ago.
Shells from living snails were dated using the Carbon 14 method. The results stated that the snails had died 27,000 years ago.
All from different Science magazines and journals.
but did they test any dwarfs??
ah ha, i thought not
they liked to be called lil people
fuck em, i like to call em lil bitches that don't need knee pads...
It's "Vertically Challenged" if you want to be PC
no, that's fat people.
they grow in the wrong direction.
That would be Horizontally Gifted.
Explorer one upon seeing a wee man for the first time: "OMG, what is that thing?"
Explorer two: "I dunno!"
Explorer one: "Kill it!"
<sounds of gun fire>
ugh, sometimes it seems like all some scientists get paid to do its just make up complete crap...they said that the skull was the BEST specimen, so what? they found one small skull, maybe it was a baby graveyard, or perhaps just one dwarf and a few other bones, IMO this doesnt justify declaring that an entirely new species of human being has been found. I agree with prowler on carbon dating, i took a creation science class that completely disproved carbon dating, true, a creation science class would be a bit biased against carbon dating, but i researched it on my own some, and it just seems to be something they use to fill in the gaps when they can, tottally inaccurate.
very tru....i took a archaeology class this semester... and i can concur
yeah no shit........try the circus........
Number 1: Of course they crossed paths with modern humans, one of them carried the ring for god's sake.
Number 2: That 'massive volcanic eruption' wasn't any random volcano, it was Mordor. Where have these people been the past three LotR movies? Jesus....
Separate names with a comma.