Problems with radiocarbon dating methods
The theory of evolution has become so ubiquitous in the scientific world today that it even distorts the way geological formations are dated.
However, these dating methods have significant problems that can lead to serious errors of interpretation.
An hourglass is a helpful analogy to explain how geologists calculate the ages of rocks.
When we look at sand in an hourglass, we can estimate how much time has passed based on the amount of sand that has fallen to the bottom.
“The accelerator mass spectrometer allows scientists to analyze the bones of the ancient Maya without severely damaging them.
The new technique can date carbon samples weighing only a few milligrams; a specimen the size of a match head will do” (“Oldest Known Maya: Not Quite So Old,” , November 1990).
” (Stephen Austin, “Excess Argon within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St.
PART 1: Back to Basics PART 2: Problems with the Assumptions PART 3: Making Sense of the Patterns This three-part series will help you properly understand radiometric dating, the assumptions that lead to inaccurate dates, and the clues about what really happened in the past.
One important answer lies in the way they date these formations.The remains of a woman found below a layered platform at a site called Cuello in northern Belize had been thought to be more than 4,000 years old …As a result of new dating methods, about a thousand years have been trimmed from the chronology.Norman Hammond of Boston University, who began digging at Cuello in the 1970s, says the remains now are believed to be from about 1200 B.C., still earlier than any other known Maya settlement.