Litnet

Die metodes wat deur darwiniste gebruik word om hulle datering van fossiele te doen, is só misleidend en gebrekkig, dat mens daar geen erns aan kan hê, nie.

Só is daar gefossileerde hout naby Banbury in Engeland gedateer met die gewilde en bekende C-14 metode en die ouderdom daarvan op tussen 20700 en 28800 jaar vasgestel, maar die kalkbank waarin dit gevind is, is sommer gedateer as 183miljoen jaar oud!

Dan is daar diamante wat gedateer is as 55,700 jaar oud, maar die rotslae waarin dit gevind is, is gedateer om tussen 1000 en 3000 miljoen jaar oud te wees!

Hier is nóg ’n tipiese voorbeelde:

“In his well-known textbook on isotope geology, Gunter Faure explains the various radioactive dating methods, including the so-called isochron method. When the results for a number of rock samples are plotted on a graph and form a straight line, the researcher can calculate an age for the samples. But Faure warns his readers not to accept the calculated age without question. He gives an example of volcanic lava along the border of Uganda, Zaire and Rwanda, East Africa. That lava is known to be relatively young, possibly erupted within historical times, yet a rubidium-strontium straight-line isochron gave an age of 773 million years.”

“In another example, Okudaira measured isochron ages of a rock called amphibolite sampled from south-east India. With the rubidium-strontium method they obtained an age of 481 million years but with samarium-neodymium the age was almost double at 824 million years.”

“Another example involves a volcanic region in Southern India, a pluton. Using the lead-lead method, a whole-rock sample gave an age of 508 million years. With the potassium-argon method, samples of mica gave an age of 450 million years. Zircons using the uranium-lead method gave an age of 572 million years. Three different samples; three different methods; three different results.”

“It all centres on the discovery of human remains in sand dunes surrounding ancient Lake Mungo—now a dry, flat plain, vegetated by scraggly salt-tolerant bushes and grasses. The first major find, in 1969, was of crushed and burnt skeletal fragments, interpreted to be of a female called Mungo Woman. What made the find significant was the assigned date. Carbon-14 dating on the hard bone material yielded an age of 19,000 years and on soft tissue gave 24,700 years. But carbon-14 dating on nearby charcoal produced an ‘age’ up to 26,500 years. This meant that the skeleton, buried slightly lower than the charcoal, must have been older. Not surprisingly, the older charcoal age was considered to be the ‘most reliable’ estimate and launched Mungo Woman to national and international fame. Jane Balme, of the Centre for Archaeology at the University of Western Australia, put it succinctly, ‘There’s a general perception that there is a competition to get the oldest date...’

Then, in 1974, Bowler and Thorne found a skeleton in a grave only 450 metres away. Because the new skeleton, Lake Mungo 3, was found in the same sand bed (technically the same stratigraphic horizon), ‘he’ was assigned the same age as Mungo Woman. Thus Mungo Man became famous too—one of the world’s earliest ritual burials (even though the sex of the individual is still in dispute). The situation became even more exciting when a different dating method (thermoluminescence) was used. In 1998, Bowler reported that sand from the Mungo 3 site gave an age of some 42,000 years. Being older than the carbon-14 dates, Mungo Man acquired a new stature on the world evolution scene. So, the earlier ‘reliable’ carbon-14 ages were abandoned in favour of the thermoluminescence ones. Then, in 1999, Thorne (not to be outdone) and other scientists from the Australian National University published a new comprehensive study on the age of Mungo Man. They used different samples of bone and sand and different dating methods … Their conclusion? Mungo Man was 62,000 years old! Bowler and Magee described this 20,000-year stretch as ‘commendable in intent.’ There was just one small problem. The new date meant that the history of Australian occupation would have to be rewritten and it also affected the ideas of human evolution in other parts of the world. And Australian archaeologists were still embarrassed by the Jinmium rock shelter fiasco, where a claimed age of 116,000 years was later reduced to 5,000 years.” – só het dieselfde skelet in ouderdom gegroei van 19,000 jaar tot 62,000 jaar in die laboratorium…

“Rock samples from a lava dome within the Mount St Helens crater, USA, were dated using the potassium-argon method. Whole-rock samples gave an age of 350,000 years. When some of the amphibole minerals in the rock sample were extracted and analyzed separately, their age was more than double at 900,000 years. Two mineral samples of a different mineral, pyroxene, gave an age of 1,700,000 and 2,800,000 years. Which age is right? None, actually. The lava dome formed after Mount St Helens exploded in 1980 and the samples were just 10 years old.”

Skandelik! 'n Lagwekkende bedrogspul.

Dit is duidelik dat die dateringsmetodes veel te wense oorlaat weens die verskillende resultate wat dramaties verskil, maar misbruik word om datering so te manipuleer om datering binne die vooropgestelde raamwerk van die hipotese in te pas – en dit word wetenskap genoem? Knoeiwerk is die korrekte woord.

Hoe kan mens op enigiets staat maak wat darwiniste verkondig?

Groete,
Kobus de Klerk