remelic wrote:Eric Aitchison wrote:As a historical revisionist I am very interested in the possibility that "carbon dating" of artefacts can be wrong due to changes in Earth's experience over time.
My only letter from Velikovsky was about the error in carbon dating mats from Tutankhamen's tomb. He is in the 1300's yet the sample tested puts it in the 800's.
Thus I think that CD is a most important topic and that if EU can provide answers then such should be sought.
I tried sending the link to this thread to the David Rohl Forum called "The New Chronology" but my post was rejected as of no interest. If corrections to CD will remove the ever present 600-year Dark Ages that abound should we not open dialogue with any scientist who can show the pitfalls of CD?
Eric Aitchison, Australia.
I agree that this is a VERY important problem that should be solved by EU. If it can show that the time-frame is actually a lot shorter for the Earth's creation then this changed the game completely. I really need to know if I can trust the dates of the ocean floor data? Is the oldest part of the ocean floor 180 million years old? I need to know if this is true or if the time-frame is shorter or longer then they say... I would have to say that the time-frame is distorted to show longer periods then they should be.
I have heard revisionist history that attempts to remove the Dark Ages. I have watched the videos (Much like I watch creationist videos) for any grains of truth. It seems that the makers of the 'No Dark Ages' works are literally removing large chunks of history. I would watch works by James Burke that explore those 600 years (from the Fall of Rome to beyond Constantine's empire). I would avoid putting too much stock in those revisionist works. This argument of Radio-Carbon dating should not be mistaken as proof of that proposition.
Now, onto the ages of the rocks on earth, we should not think that the ages are all circumspect, the timeframes themselves are shorter, but the frames themselves exist. Sufficed to say that, noting the timeframes of King Tut's tomb-wares are slightly reduced, we apparently had higher electrical charge the further back in time we go, the timeframes would be even more reduced the further back we go.
But they still exist. That would mean that, after accounting for local strikes at certain times, we should still a general trend back in time, like we do. The timeframes are shortened, but it doesn't mean that they are moved from millions of years ago to thousands. There is still distinct patterns over time, even if the rate of decay is different than it is now.
Interestingly, EU theory does solve the 'Creationist Argument' called "Radio-Halo Discrepencies". They can be solved by rocks that did form in seconds as opposed to the geological timeframes normally associated with rock formation. I'm sure that's another thread however