IPFS News Link • Anthropology
-
Special Editions
- Global
- Due Diligence
- Love Bus Liberty Tour
- Vaccine Education Summit
- Bitcoin Summit
- US-Arizona
- US-Tennessee
- Ernie's Favorites
- THE R3VOLUTION CONTINUES
- "It's Not My Debt"
- Fascist Nation's Favorites
- Surviving the Greatest Depression
- The Only Solution - Direct Action Revolution
- Western Libertarian
- S.A.F.E. - Second Amendment is For Everyone
- Freedom Summit
- Declare Your Independence
- FreedomsPhoenix Speakers Bureau
- Wallet Voting
- Harhea Phoenix
- Black Market Friday
IPFS News Link • Anthropology
Current News | Contents By Subject
Additional Related items you might find interesting:Related items:
News Link •
Science, Medicine and Technology
Secret to eternal youth? John Cleese extols virtues of stem cell treatment
News Link •
Food
From Breakfast Bowl to Biological Age: How Oats Can Help Turn Back the Clock on Inflammation
News Link •
Health and Physical Fitness
Walking is good for you, obviously. But can it whip you into shape?
News Link •
Science, Medicine and Technology
1 Comments in Response to Clovis Theory Speared
The problem with the info in this article is the "precisely to 13,800 years ago" part. Here's what I mean, speaking simply.
All archeological dating is based on actually finding some element of a civilization - pottery, flint arrow or spear tips, remains of living quarters, etc. - that can be shown at dig sites to have pre-dated other similar finds at the same or similar sites. The farthest we have been able to go back based on this kind of dating alone, is 5,000 years or so.
If we want to go back further, we use carbon-14 dating, or possibly some other molecule that we can measure radioactivity in. We base our dating on the amount co C-14 in the 5,000 year-old dig materials that we have dated using non-C-14 methods, and compare it with today's C-14. This gives us an extendable "rate" that we can use to date all kinds of things that must be older than 5,000 years.
The problem with this kind of dating is that we must assume that the amount of C-14 in older materials and substances fits our established rate. If geological and atmospheric conditions were different pre-5,000 years ago, our rating system wouldn't be accurate.
Until we can find material that we can date older than 5,000 years using non-C-14, standard archeological dating methods, we have nothing on which to base our older-than-5,000-years calculations with any kind of certainty.
We are finding out that there have been some tremendous upheavals in the earth in the past - upheavals of all different kinds, from gigantic earthquakes, to huge volcanoes, to meteor crashes, and who knows what else. What this means is that the C-14 rate probably was extremely different in the ancient past.
All C-14 dating that goes beyond about 5,000 years is at best a guestimation.