Theory: Why The Exodus Myth Exists

Having read the final report DS86, there is no mention of accelerated radioactive decay. External dosage-Health Physics SocietyVolume 2 of DS86So it would really help if you checked some of your material before making such assertion.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

But that is not what Geochron's website says.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Well,
That is the claim. However, there have been numerous archelogical finds in the ocean where they used carbon 14 dating.
Here is an article that mentions using carbon 14 dating on undersea wreaks.

---

I think you forgot to link the article . But you are right, carbon 14 dating has been used to date archaeological finds in the ocean. However, as mentioned above, the principle argument is that salt water leeches out the carbon 14 molecules over time. Employing this method of dating for undersea wrecks (did you man wrecks?) would also probably depend on how old they are presumed to be. But whether they employed this method or not, the real question is, what were the results? Were they accurate? Did the tests yield the expected results? How long were these remains lieing on the seabed?And most important of all, how strong is the salt content in this particular area? The Gulf of Aqaba is particularly high in salt content.

---

~Lysimachus

quote:

---

Having read the final report DS86, there is no mention of accelerated radioactive decay.

​

External dosage-Health Physics Society

​

Volume 2 of DS86

​

So it would really help if you checked some of your material before making such assertion.

---

Jar, you are picking on minor points and branching off on a tangent. Stick with the point. Dating is innacurate beyond 3000 years, ESPECIALLY on remains lieing in high-salt content waters. You jst love to throw little insagnificant side digs to see if maybe discrediting one portion of a claim will help to nullify it all. That ain't gonna happen here.

---

~Lysimachus

jar,You go get some pieces of coral encrusted objects from the Gulf of Aqaba and take it to Geochron Labs. Let's see how successful you are.You are taking what Geochron's website says out of context.

---

~Lysimachus

Does or DID ? Techniques continue to improve and the Geochron Laboratories page indicates that the method is usable up to 50,000 years. And that is certainly in line with the scientific evidence.It is possible that at one time the method used by Geochron was limited to 3000 years but that does not mean that it is still the case.

Perhaps you would like to provide some evidence for the claim that C14 is leached out.

Cliff You brought the subjects up. Now would you like to discuss the relative saltiness of the Gulf of Aqaba vs the Red Sea in general, because there is no major difference there either.You guys have a habit of sticking unsupported assertions in your posts as though they were evidence.Geochron's own site says they use C14 dating back to beyond 40,000 years. You assert it is unaccurate, quoting that your proof is the Geochron will not use it beyond 3000 years. When you are shown that is incorrect you just continue your assertion.You assert that radiodecay is unreliable and use as evidence accelerated decay at Nagasaki. When evidence is provided that is not the case, you fall back on claiming it is nit picking.You guys have totally failed to provide any evidence.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Out of context? I provided a link to their website itself. How the hell can that be out of context?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I'd like to take a serious shot at why the myth still exists.First, the Book it's in is pretty well established. It gets more advertising than any other book out there. Afterall, once a week at least it gets pitched to literally billions of people world wide.Second, true or not, it is an epic story. It has all of the charateristics of any of the epics. It has heroes and villains, cliff hangers, narrow escapes, car( well chariot) chases and close calls. It has miracles, suffering, astounding vistas, last minute plot changes, a cast of millions and lots of mystery.Third, there is a large body of people that despite all the evidence will swear that it is true. They are true believers and will never be swayed by evidence and even go so far as to make up evidence if necessary. A good example is the petroglyphs they claim are evidence of the altar where the Golden Calf was worshipped.Finally, there is an even larger body of people that will never even think about it but will simply accept the story.This message has been edited by jar, 08-24-2004 09:47 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, considering the extreme bias of this link (very anti-science), I am certainly not going to accept THEIR word for what geochron will do.I mean, when a web site starts out with the propostions 'why evolution should not be taught as a theory'.. you know they are not into scientific fact.If you read where the information came from, it came from
Catholic Community ForumIf I want to find out about science, I don't go to a religious web site, unless it specifically about religion, and even then, I need
confirmation from another place.This message has been edited by ramoss, 08-24-2004 10:16 PMThis message has been edited by ramoss, 08-24-2004 10:21 PM

quote:

---

You guys have totally failed to provide any evidence.

---

Once again, quit lieing to yourself. We have provided compelling evidence on this board, and you know it. It's that you interpret it as "not evidence" that makes you think it. We believe it is evidence, but you refuse to acknowledge it as evidence.And yet again, you and PaulK are taking the "50,000 years" quote out of context. That is the MAXIMUM number of which in theory, is the range. But in ACTUAL practice, C-14 dating is highly inaccurate beyond 3000 years, and COMPLETELY inaccurate beyond 50,000. You arn't reading it in its proper context. You read what you want to read into it.Go to any modern scientist, and they will tell you that this is true. That C-14 dating is only truly reliable a few thousand years. This is common knowledge, and you know it.But let us say even if their C-14 dating has improved, and dating is accurate up to 50,000 years. This is only referring objects outside of salt water. But when speaking of coral encrusted objects that have been in high-salt content waters for thousands of years, then MOST CERTAINLY this range could not apply.

---

~Lysimachus

nmThis message has been edited by crashfrog, 08-25-2004 11:12 AM

The Geochron Laboratories site explicitly states that C14 dating is used for dates of up to 50,000 years. That isn't out of context that is what it says. There is NO other limit mentioned on that page. It clearly refers to the useful range, not a theoretical maximum.The complete first paragraph on their C14 dating page states:

quote:

---

Radiocarbon dating is the principal method for determining the age of carbon-bearing materials from the present to about 50,000 years ago.

---

Geochron Laboratories / Krueger Enterprises: Radiocarbon Age DeterminationsThe text copy of the form for submitting samples is here
http://www.geochronlabs.com/sample.txtI don't know whether your claim that the "50,000 years" quote is "out of context" is an invention made in ignorance of the truth or a flat out lie. But I know that it is not true and that it has no foundation in reality.As for what scientists say the Radicarbon Web offers this page
Radiocarbon Date calculation

quote:

---

In an earlier section we mentioned that the limit of the technique is about 55-60 000 years. Obviously, the limit of the method differs between laboratories dependent upon the extent to which background levels of radioactivity can be reduced. Amongst accelerator laboratories there has been mooted the theoretical possibility of extended range dating to 75 000 yr +, at present this seems difficult to attain because of the problems in accurately differentiating between ions that mimic the mass and charge characteristics of the C14 atom. Beukens (1994) for instance has stated that this means the limit of the range for his Isotrace laboratory is 60 000 yr which is very similar to the conventional range.

---

This page from Oxford University's Radiocarbon unit states:

quote:

---

The range of radiocarbon dating, which is the last 50,000 years, spans most of the activities of modern humans (and the extinction of Neanderthals in Europe). Radiocarbon dating has been widely used to date prehistoric archaeological sites throughout this period.

---

http://www.rlaha.ox.ac.uk/orau/leaf_arch.htmlSo scientists say that it is useful for the last 50,000 years.

The non-admin mode (minnemooseus) says you don't know what you're talking about.I (Adminnemooseus) say, propose a new topic for your carbon dating arguements. They are pretty marginal to the topic here.Adminnemooseus

---

Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
Thread Reopen Requests