5300 year old mummy

[dozerman5676]

http://www.livescience.com/pt-28591?utm_source=OB&utm_medium=PPC&utm_campaign=20160706ptheadb

 

IF... he is really 5,300 years old, that would mean he lived at a time that Adam was still alive.  5,300 years ago he was about 45 years old and Adam would have been around 700 (he died at 930)

[Thesauron]

The official museum website (iceman.it) says that the Iceman Ötzi lived between 3350 and 3100 BC, but also that the dating was achieved using radiocarbon methods.

[Tortuga]

32 minutes ago, Thesauron said:

The official museum website (iceman.it) says that the Iceman Ötzi lived between 3350 and 3100 BC, but also that the dating was achieved using radiocarbon methods.

You mean there was ice before the flood?

[dozerman5676]

39 minutes ago, Thesauron said:

The official museum website (iceman.it) says that the Iceman Ötzi lived between 3350 and 3100 BC, but also that the dating was achieved using radiocarbon methods.

And Adam died in 3096 so the math still works BASED ON RADIOCARBON DATING.... Big question mark there though.

[carlos]

6 hours ago, Thesauron said:

The official museum website (iceman.it) says that the Iceman Ötzi lived between 3350 and 3100 BC, but also that the dating was achieved using radiocarbon methods.

I can't back it up with a scripture, but I always understood that there were no people in Europe before the Flood. That all of mankind was concentrated in Mesopotamia, more or less near the place where Noah lived. It's out of the question that Noah could travel around the world preaching to different communities. I could be wrong however. But I strongly believe as Johan suggests that radiocarbon dating is probably off and Ötzi is post-Flood.

[Thesauron]

I can't back it up with a scripture, but I always understood that there were no people in Europe before the Flood. That all of mankind was concentrated in Mesopotamia, more or less near the place where Noah lived. It's out of the question that Noah could travel around the world preaching to different communities. I could be wrong however. But I strongly believe as Johan suggests that radiocarbon dating is probably off and Ötzi is post-Flood.

Well, we don't know. It seems his clothes were made from local material, so he must have been there a while, but he also seems like a particularly well prepared wanderer, with excellent clothes and items. Perhaps he was an explorer of sorts?

[jayrtom]

Isn't radio carbon dating based on the premises that the amount of C14 in the atmosphere has been constant? Well before the flood it wasn't for sure, so every dating prior to the date of the flood is a biased and flawed dating.... At least that's my understanding....  Sharon, are you there?  ;) 

[pholmes38]

9 hours ago, jayrtom said:

Isn't radio carbon dating based on the premises that the amount of C14 in the atmosphere has been constant? Well before the flood it wasn't for sure, so every dating prior to the date of the flood is a biased and flawed dating.... At least that's my understanding....  Sharon, are you there?  ;) 

I recall reading this in old Awake.

I just checked and it was Sept 22 1986.

For those of us with an unscientific mind, we need someone to carefully and clearly explain it to us

[Qapla]

On 9/2/2016 at 11:31 AM, dozerman5676 said:

http://www.livescience.com/pt-28591?utm_source=OB&utm_medium=PPC&utm_campaign=20160706ptheadb

 

IF... he is really 5,300 years old, that would mean he lived at a time that Adam was still alive.  5,300 years ago he was about 45 years old and Adam would have been around 700 (he died at 930)

Was that 9:30 AM or PM? 

[Old]

17 hours ago, jayrtom said:

Isn't radio carbon dating based on the premises that the amount of C14 in the atmosphere has been constant? Well before the flood it wasn't for sure, so every dating prior to the date of the flood is a biased and flawed dating.... At least that's my understanding....  Sharon, are you there?  ;) 

"It wasn't for sure" I am not questioning our scriptural beliefs. I don't necessarily agree that we can figure back to Adam's creation, or to the flood within an accuracy of a few years either way. However how can we state "It wasn't for sure...", I don't dispute, but how do we know? What is the doubt based on?

 

[Shawnster]

On 9/2/2016 at 10:00 AM, Tortuga said:

You mean there was ice before the flood?

What else would they use in their margaritas?

[jayrtom]

5 hours ago, Old said:

"It wasn't for sure" I am not questioning our scriptural beliefs. I don't necessarily agree that we can figure back to Adam's creation, or to the flood within an accuracy of a few years either way. However how can we state "It wasn't for sure...", I don't dispute, but how do we know? What is the doubt based on?

 

I said "it wasn't for sure" because, one way or the other,what was above the earth, the atmosphere, changed drastically... I don't read anything else but "drastically" on this scripture:

"

• Ge 7:11
• In the 600th year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the 17th day of the month, on that day all the springs of the vast watery deep burst open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.

"

 

[retroHelen]

Whenever I hear reports with dates discovered with radio-carbon 14, I remember when we did the special campaign with April 8th 1972 Awake magazine. 

 

I had a great time at school with this issue. We were doing experiments with C-14 at the time in the science labs, so I placed lots of copies with friends and friends of friends who made requests. Placed lots and had to beg around the congregation for more copies as more requests came to me off more kids at school.

 

This magazine and a further one that discussed the so-called era layers of geology (Jurassic, etc) and how innaccurate they are too, went down really well with pupils - not the teachers though!

Edited September 17, 2016 by retroHelen

[carlos]

On sábado, 03 de septiembre de 2016 at 7:43 PM, pholmes38 said:

For those of us with an unscientific mind, we need someone to carefully and clearly explain it to us

Carbon is a component of air. So every time we breath, a small amount of carbon is stored in our body. Now there's a variant of carbon named carbon 14 which is radioactive, that is, it slowly disintegrates. A small amount of C14 is stored in our body too when we breath. As long as we keep breathing, that amount remains stable. But as soon as we die and stop breathing, it begins disintegrating. It like an hourglass that is activated when one dies.

 

Scientists have measured accurately the rate at which C14 disintegrates. Of any given amount of C14, half of it will have disappeared after 5730 years. And we know how much C14 is usually found in any air-breathing creature: man, animal or plant. So when a fossil is found, comparing the amount of C14 it has with the original amount it had at the time of death it's easy to calculate how long that creature has been dead.

 

The problem with this method is that the older the fossil, the smaller the amount of C14 is, and therefore harder and less accurate to measure. Besides, if the amount of C14 in the atmosphere was considerably higher or lower in a certain period, fossils from that period will be inaccurately dated as considerably younger or older than they really are. We know for certain that the ratio of C14 in the air has not been constant, so datings by C14 often have to be "tuned" using other methods, which of course adds a lot of subjectivity to the dating.