Thedating ru link group koleksi cerita lucah telegram

The result is that the public assumes the dating methods used at any given time are adequate, whereas the dating specialists working with those methods know that this is not necessarily the case.

thedating ru-80

However, because ostrich eggshell is thought to be a rather closed system, it is claimed that items found in association with it can be dated more accurately by the amino-acid-racemization method.

The admissions now being made about the dating methods that have been previously used by evolutionists to cover this time period are particularly interesting.

All other Neanderthal remains, some 300 fossil individuals, or approximately 98.6% of all of the Neanderthals, fall into the period covered by this gap.

(It is well known that another reason why many of the Neanderthal fossils are poorly dated is because they were found long before the importance of documenting fossils in their geological context was fully appreciated.) The relatively new fossil category created by evolutionists, the "archaic Homo sapiens" category, contains at least 64 fossil individuals.

These admissions have profound implications for human evolution.

In the Science article on ostrich-eggshell dating,[3] the authors state that many of the dates assigned to human fossils in this 40,000-to-200,000-years ago period based on the older methods were only "provisional," and that all such dating is "uncertain." These are remarkable admissions.However, the real seriousness of this problem seems to elude them, even when they occasionally refer to it in their writings.[1] In the past 15 years, the major focus of human evolution has shifted from the origin of "all" humans to the origin of "modern" humans, and the very time during which modern humans are alleged to have evolved from their more primitive human ancestors is the period covered by this gap.At least 406 human-fossil individuals are placed by evolutionists in this 40,000-to-200,000 ya time-period gap and hence are questionably dated.[2] The inability of the radiocarbon and the K-Ar methods to cover this time period explains why many alternate dating methods have been devised to attempt to give coverage in this area.Since the morphology of a fossil cannot be changed, it is obvious that the dating is the more subjective element of the two items.Yet, accurate dating of fossils is so essential that the scientific respectability of evolution is contingent upon fossils having appropriate dates.It covers roughly the period known as the Middle Stone Age (MSA).

Comments are closed.