It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: Triton1128
The age is assumed. It has not been verified. All it takes is a passer by that drops a chicken bone 1500 years ago. We find that bone now, does it mean the site is that old? Or does it mean that's how old that object that was found is??
There’s this magical thing called stratification.
originally posted by: micpsi
originally posted by: Harte
originally posted by: micpsi
originally posted by: Harte
originally posted by: Archivalist
Neato, looks like a minecraft auto-farm.
How old is this temple again?
Dates to around 500 AD.
Harte
Yes. And 1000 years after a nuclear war in 2020 almost wiped out humanity, archaeologists carbon-date a bacon sandwich dropped by a visitor at Stonehenge in 2019 and concluded that the stones were 1000 years old. Very reliable.....
So, they find a thousand year old bacon sandwich, date it to a thousand years old, and that's somehow "unreliable?"
That's some argument you got there.
Harte
You misunderstood (sigh!). Let me repeat the argument that debunks how archaeologists wrongly extrapolate the ages of things. They don't just state their carbon-14 readings and leave it at that. They then go on to claim that the stones themselves were cut and erected at the time their instruments indicate the organic material appeared. This is plain stupid and an unscientific deduction. Stonehenge was built thousands of years before visitors dropped bacon sandwiches nearby.
Get it now? Or do you still want to pretend to misunderstand me because you have no answer to my criticism?