Why is a date of 10,000 BCE such fantasy? Last I checked the Earth was over 4.5 billion years old. - MarcusDrake
* The Earth could easily be merely 20,000 years old, as Venus is likely not over 12,000 years old. Virtually all conventional dating is based on assumptions of uniformitarianism, i.e. that no major catastrophic events occurred for billions of years and that electrical forces have little influence in solar systems. Sitchin greatly misinterpreted the Sumerian tablets. Talbott et al have much better interpretations that conform with proper interpretations of other myths worldwide.
* This TPOD http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/ ... 8dots2.htm shows that a major catastrophe may have occurred about 3100 BC. Physicist[?] Robert Gentry found that the granite basement rock of the continents solidified almost instantly, instead of over millions or billions of years.
* Here are some other relevant EU theory statements on dating.
Astronomical Myths of Mercury & the Sun http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=e511t4z2
Myth No. 4 [says:] Radioactive dating can give reliable estimates of the ages of rocks; The solar system is 3.7 billion years old. [False!]
- Radioactive dating relies on a planet being essentially a closed system since shortly after its formation. However, powerful plasma discharges are a copious source of neutrons, which can introduce radioactive species to planetary surfaces. Matter is also irradiated and transferred between planets by cosmic discharges. Radioactive ‘clocks’ cannot be relied upon under such circumstances. "This also explains isotope anomalies in some meteorites, for example, in the Allende meteorite (and others of its type) where short-lived radioactive decay products like Mg26 are found to excess. It suggests conventionally that there was more than the expected amount of Al26 in the early nebula when the meteor was formed. This, in turn, has led to speculation that there was a nearby supernova at or near the same time. No such implausible explanation is required in an Electric Universe. The meteor is a remnant of debris removed from a planetary surface by a plasma arc, which has the power to generate radioactive species in situ in the meteorite.
Challenging absolute time http://www.plasmacosmology.net/spec.html
- Russian scientists discover unexpected regularities in radioactive decay linked to astronomical cycles
- From the link: "The implication is that many phenomena which until now have been regarded as purely statistical in character -- such as the distribution of fluctuations in the momentary rates of radioactivity measured in a sample -- are somehow controlled or at least strongly influenced by an astrophysical factor..."
- If radioactive decay is linked to astronomical cycles, as these scientists argue, then this could challenge conventional chronologies. Additionally, if the solar system has suffered upheavals in recent millenia, especially of an intense electrical nature as many catastrophists contend, then traditional dating methods become almost obsolete.
* This TPOD http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/ ... fossil.htm says:
Ian Tresman's Catastrophism CD on-line (see link below) will generate 101 different references to radiometric dating in catastrophist literature. Most of these articles are about anomalies in radiometric dating
* This TPOD http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/ ... ongago.htm says:
- Is there evidence that the radiometric dating methods that scientists use with such confidence can change?
- ... if an increase in radioactively neutral carbon isotope were to accumulate in our biosphere from burning forests, from cosmic dust, or from extensive volcanic eruptions, anything dated following whichever particular cause would appear much older. No definite timeline can be constructed using the dating methods traditionally thought to produce accurate results.
- It seems possible that plasma interactions with Earth and other charged bodies in space, or the impact of ion beams from a vast cloud of plasma on our biosphere could disrupt all the elemental changes that are used to date rocks: uranium changing to lead; potassium changing to argon; or samarium changing to neodymium. Therefore, the Earth could be much younger than the billions of years commonly ascribed to it. It is equally possible that it is much older than is thought. Until some radical new discovery is made, no one can be sure.