Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

THE PROBLEMS WITH CARBON-14 DATING

Expand Messages
  • Prophecykeepers Foundation
    Carbon-14 dating is the standard method used by scientists to determine the age of certain fossilized remains.  As scientists will often claim something to
    Message 1 of 19 , Feb 11, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Carbon-14 dating is the standard method used by scientists to determine the age of certain fossilized remains.  As scientists will often claim something to be millions or billions of years old (ages that do not conform to the Biblical account of the age of the earth), Christians are often left wondering about the accuracy of the carbon-14 method.  The truth is, carbon-14 dating (or radiocarbon dating, as it’s also called) is not a precise dating method in many cases, due to faulty assumptions and other limitations on this method.
      Carbon has a weight of twelve atomic mass units (AMU’s), and is the building block of all organic matter (plants and animals).  A small percentage of carbon atoms have an atomic weight of 14 AMU’s.  This is carbon-14.  Carbon-14 is an unstable, radioactive isotope of carbon 12.  As with any radioactive isotope, carbon-14 decays over time.  The half-life of carbon 14 is approximate 5,730 years.  That means if you took one pound of 100 percent carbon-14, in 5,730 years, you would only have half a pound left. 
      Carbon-14 is created in the upper atmosphere as nitrogen atoms are bombarded by cosmic radiation.  For every one trillion carbon-12 atoms, you will find one carbon-14 atoms.  The carbon-14 that results from the reaction caused by cosmic radiation quickly changes to carbon dioxide, just like normal carbon-12 would.  Plants utilize, or “breath in” carbon dioxide, then ultimately release oxygen for animals to inhale.  The carbon-14 dioxide is utilized by plants in the same way normal carbon dioxide is.  This carbon-14 dioxide then ends up in humans and other animals as it moves up the food chain. 
      There is then a ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the bodies of plants, humans, and other animals that can fluctuate, but will be fixed at the time of death.  After death, the carbon-14 would begin to decay at the rate stated above.  In 1948, Dr. W.F. Libby introduced the carbon-14 dating method at the University of Chicago.  The premise behind the method is to determine the ratio of carbon-14 left in organic matter, and by doing so, estimate how long ago death occurred by running the ratio backwards.  The accuracy of this method, however, relies on several faulty assumptions.
      First, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, one must assume the rate of decay of carbon-14 has remained constant over the years.  However, evidence indicates that the opposite is true.  Experiments have been performed using the radioactive isotopes of uranium-238 and iron-57, and have shown that rates can and do vary.  In fact, changing the environments surrounding the samples can alter decay rates. 
      The second faulty assumption is that the rate of carbon-14 formation has remained constant over the years.  There are a few reasons to believe this assumption is erroneous.  The industrial revolution greatly increased the amount of carbon-12 released into the atmosphere through the burning of coal.  Also, the atomic bomb testing around 1950 caused a rise in neutrons, which increased carbon-14 concentrations.  The great flood which Noah and family survived would have uprooted and/or buried entire forests.  This would decrease the release of carbon-12 to the atmosphere through the decay of vegetation. 
      Third, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, the concentrations of carbon-14 and carbon-12 must have remained constant in the atmosphere.  In addition to the reasons mentioned in the previous paragraph, the flood provides another evidence that this is a faulty assumption.  During the flood, subterranean water chambers that were under great pressure would have been breached.  This would have resulted in an enormous amount of carbon-12 being released into the oceans and atmosphere.  The effect would be not unlike opening a can of soda and having the carbon dioxide fizzing out.  The water in these subterranean chambers would not have contained carbon-14, as the water was shielded from cosmic radiation.  This would have upset the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12. 
      To make carbon-14 dating work, Dr. Libby also assumed that the amount of carbon-14 being presently produced had equaled the amount of carbon-12 – he assumed that they had reached a balance.  The formation of carbon-14 increases with time, and at the time of creation was probably at or near zero.  Since carbon-14 is radioactive, it begins to decay immediately as it’s formed.  If you start with no carbon-14 in the atmosphere, it would take over 50,000 years for the amount being produced to reach equilibrium with the amount decaying.  One of the reasons we know that the earth is less than 50,000 years old is because of the biblical record.  Another reason we can know this is because the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is only 78% what it would be if the earth were old. 
      Finally, Dr. Libby and the evolutionist crowd have assumed that all plant and animal life utilize carbon-14 equally as they do carbon-12.  To be grammatically crass, this ain’t necessarily so.  Live mollusks off the Hawaiian coast have had their shells dated with the carbon-14 method.  These test showed that the shells died 2000 years ago!  This news came as quite a shock to the mollusks that had been using those shells until just recently. 
      We’ve listed five faulty assumptions here that have caused overestimates of age using the carbon-14 method.  The list of non-compliant dates from this method is endless.  Most evolutionists today would conclude that carbon-14 dating is – at best – reliable for only the last 3000 to 3500 years.  There is another reason that carbon-14 dating has yielded questionable results – human bias. 
      If you’ve ever been part of a medical study, you’re probably familiar with the terms “blind study” and “double-blind study”.  In a blind study, using carbon-14 dating for example, a person would send in a few quality control samples along with the actual sample to the laboratory.  The laboratory analyst should not know which sample is the one of interest.  In this way, the analyst could not introduce bias into the dating of the actual sample.  In a double-blind study (using an experimental drug study as an example), some patients will be given the experimental drug, while others will be given a placebo (a harmless sugar pill).  Neither the patients nor the doctors while know who gets what.  This provides an added layer of protection against bias. 
      Radiocarbon dates that do not fit a desired theory are often excluded by alleging cross-contamination of the sample.  In this manner, an evolutionist can present a sample for analysis, and tell the laboratory that he assumes the sample to be somewhere between 50,000 years old and 100,000 years old.  Dates that do not conform to this estimate are thrown out.  Repeated testing of the sample may show nine tests that indicate an age of 5000 to 10,000 years old, and one test that shows an age of 65,000 years old.  The nine results showing ages that do not conform to the pre-supposed theory are excluded.  This is bad science, and it is practiced all the time to fit with the evolutionary model.
      The Shroud of Turin, claimed to be the burial cloth of Christ, was supposedly dated by a blind test. Actually, the control specimens were so dissimilar that the technicians at the three laboratories making the measurements could easily tell which specimen was from the Shroud.  This would be like taking a piece of wood and two marbles and submitting them to the lab with the instructions that “one of these is from an ancient ponderosa pine, guess which.”  The test would have been blind if the specimens had been reduced to carbon powder before they were given to the testing laboratories.  Humans are naturally biased.  We tend to see what we want to see, and explain away unwanted data. 
      Perhaps the best description of the problem in attempting to use the Carbon-14 dating method is to be found in the words of Dr. Robert Lee. In 1981, he wrote an article for the Anthropological Journal of Canada, in which stated:
      "The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a fix-it-as-we-go approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half has come to be accepted….  No matter how useful it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually the selected dates.”
      The accuracy of carbon-14 dating relies on faulty assumptions, and is subject to human bias.  At best, radiocarbon dating is only accurate for the past few thousand years.  As we’ve seen though, even relatively youthful samples are often dated incorrectly.  The Biblical record gives us an indication of an earth that is relatively young.  The most reliable use of radiocarbon dating supports that position.  This method of dating, overall, tends to be as faulty and ill conceived as the evolutionary model that is was designed to support. 
    • Prophecykeepers Foundation
      Like I said we tradition-minded folks love European-minded folks for trying to understand but we really don t care if you believe us or not. We noticed 500
      Message 2 of 19 , Feb 11, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Like I said we tradition-minded folks love European-minded folks for trying to understand but we really don't care if you believe us or not.

        We noticed 500 years ago that Europeans immigrants to our continent were prone to fantasies and did not practice what they preached, so we don't take much of your science seriously.



        .


        From: Jeff <quarefremeruntgentes7@...>
        To: Ancient Waterways Society <ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com>
        Cc: Wayne May <wayne@...>
        Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 2:08 PM
        Subject: Re: [ancient_waterways_society] Solutrean Evidence

         
        Thank you, Mr. White, for taking these things into consideration. All I can add is that if you want to compose a credible record of Cherokee prehistory, then you will have to confront this issue, and find some credible resolution. Otherwise, you will merely be amusing the arkies, historians, etc.

        Warm Regards,

        Jeff Lewin


        Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

        From: "joe white" <joe_white@...>
        Sender: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 13:01:59 -0600
        To: <ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com>
        ReplyTo: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
        Cc: Terry Miller<walosi25@...>; Pamela Sexton<psexton50@...>; wayne<wayne@...>; Will Blueotter, White Roots of Peace Council NAC<nighthawkwebworks@...>
        Subject: Re: [ancient_waterways_society] Solutrean Evidence

        Siyo,
         
        it will all fit together at the ends of the various research projects.
         
        look how far we have come with the DNA in the past 13 years.
         
        Scott Wolter,  Donald Panther-Yates, Chief Rogers, Blueotter,
        Terry Miller, Wayne May, and many others are working to bring all of this
        together where we can easily understand it.
         
        I am sure that when it is ready, Wayne May will publish the results
        in Ancient American Magazine.
         
        keep up this important research.
         
        shalom,
         
        sitting owl 
        ----- Original Message --
         
         
         
        ---
        From: Jeff
        Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 12:12 PM
        Subject: Re: [ancient_waterways_society] Solutrean Evidence

         
        My point was not to give you a hard time, or to mock your claims. Insofar as you show concern for your heritage, and the prehistory of your nation, I certainly have no objection, and wish you all the best. I was just pointing out that there is an existing historical and archaeological record, and if I am right in suspecting that you hope, where possible, to harmonize your proposed prehistory and chronology with the existing record of history and archaeology, issues such as this may arise.

        Over the years, the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_event>, which I alluded to in my earlier post, was promoted in some articles I read. Upon reading through Wikipedia's entry on this subject, it no longer seems that this hypothesis offers a credible explanation of the Late Pleistocene extinction. Contrary to what I had previously read, the supposedly coinciding extinction of paleo-indian populations also seem to have been disproven, so I willingly yield to you on this point, and, in fairness, will give some further consideration to the chronology and prehistory you propose.

        If I remember rightly, the Eastern Cherokee Nation have recently begun to trace their ancestry to the Old Testament Patriarch Abraham (according to Chief Joe White? Chief White Owl??). My understanding of the accepted history, prehistory, and chronology make this claim a bit more difficult to reconcile with your proposed Solutrean origin of the Cherokee. The time frame proposed by archaeologists for known Solutrean sites predates Abraham's time in the 17th century B.C. by several millenia. Tying these threads together would seem to pose a more serious challenge to your proposed prehistory for the Cherokee.

        Warm Regards,

        Jeff


        Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

        From: Prophecykeepers Foundation <prophecykeepersdotcom@...>
        Sender: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 19:16:17 -0800 (PST)
        To: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com<ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com>
        ReplyTo: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [ancient_waterways_society] Solutrean Evidence

        This is what my Cherokee ancestors have insisted for centuries... that we migrated here from across the eastern ocean. Ethnologists figured that out in the 1930s.



        From: Ted Sojka <tedsojka@...>
        To: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Saturday, February 9, 2013 10:29 PM
        Subject: [ancient_waterways_society] Solutrean Evidence

         
        http://outofatlantis.blogspot.com/2012/03/19000-year-old-virginia-flint-knife.html

        The video at the bottom of the page is worth the 42 minutes with the
        evidence presented by Dennis Stanford of the Smithsonian, a recognized
        lithic technology expert.
        ted

        PS Thanks to Larry, I present this again after posting the video
        several months ago.




      • Prophecykeepers Foundation
        Another point is the traditional Cherokee do not claim to have a single genesis... we do know that we have had influxes of many different groups of travelers
        Message 3 of 19 , Feb 11, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Another point is the traditional Cherokee do not claim to have a single genesis... we do know that we have had influxes of many different groups of travelers over a long period of time... we even have a special clan for them so they can be taught how to be Cherokee.

          Tahlequah has rewritten history in some instances e.g in the case of Sequoyah.

          We have cultural memories of some of our ancestors that migrated here from off-planet. There is no plausible explanation for what happened in Sumeria anciently other than extra-terrestrial intervention.

          Our original Cherokee language is NOT Being spoken and people assume we are Iroquoian, which is not true.

          Dr Charles Jahtlohi Rogers is one of maybe 15 people (maybe even less) among the Cherokee who can even begins to understand and/or explain our ancient linguistic history.

          Generally, most Cherokees don't know and they don't want to know either.





          .


          From: joe white <joe_white@...>
          To: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
          Cc: Terry Miller <walosi25@...>; Pamela Sexton <psexton50@...>; wayne <wayne@...>; "Will Blueotter, White Roots of Peace Council NAC" <nighthawkwebworks@...>
          Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 1:01 PM
          Subject: Re: [ancient_waterways_society] Solutrean Evidence

           
          
          Siyo,
           
          it will all fit together at the ends of the various research projects.
           
          look how far we have come with the DNA in the past 13 years.
           
          Scott Wolter,  Donald Panther-Yates, Chief Rogers, Blueotter,
          Terry Miller, Wayne May, and many others are working to bring all of this
          together where we can easily understand it.
           
          I am sure that when it is ready, Wayne May will publish the results
          in Ancient American Magazine.
           
          keep up this important research.
           
          shalom,
           
          sitting owl 
          ----- Original Message --
           
           
           
          ---
          From: Jeff
          Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 12:12 PM
          Subject: Re: [ancient_waterways_society] Solutrean Evidence

           
          My point was not to give you a hard time, or to mock your claims. Insofar as you show concern for your heritage, and the prehistory of your nation, I certainly have no objection, and wish you all the best. I was just pointing out that there is an existing historical and archaeological record, and if I am right in suspecting that you hope, where possible, to harmonize your proposed prehistory and chronology with the existing record of history and archaeology, issues such as this may arise.

          Over the years, the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_event>, which I alluded to in my earlier post, was promoted in some articles I read. Upon reading through Wikipedia's entry on this subject, it no longer seems that this hypothesis offers a credible explanation of the Late Pleistocene extinction. Contrary to what I had previously read, the supposedly coinciding extinction of paleo-indian populations also seem to have been disproven, so I willingly yield to you on this point, and, in fairness, will give some further consideration to the chronology and prehistory you propose.

          If I remember rightly, the Eastern Cherokee Nation have recently begun to trace their ancestry to the Old Testament Patriarch Abraham (according to Chief Joe White? Chief White Owl??). My understanding of the accepted history, prehistory, and chronology make this claim a bit more difficult to reconcile with your proposed Solutrean origin of the Cherokee. The time frame proposed by archaeologists for known Solutrean sites predates Abraham's time in the 17th century B.C. by several millenia. Tying these threads together would seem to pose a more serious challenge to your proposed prehistory for the Cherokee.

          Warm Regards,

          Jeff


          Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

          From: Prophecykeepers Foundation <prophecykeepersdotcom@...>
          Sender: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 19:16:17 -0800 (PST)
          To: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com<ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com>
          ReplyTo: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [ancient_waterways_society] Solutrean Evidence

          This is what my Cherokee ancestors have insisted for centuries... that we migrated here from across the eastern ocean. Ethnologists figured that out in the 1930s.



          From: Ted Sojka <tedsojka@...>
          To: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Saturday, February 9, 2013 10:29 PM
          Subject: [ancient_waterways_society] Solutrean Evidence

           
          http://outofatlantis.blogspot.com/2012/03/19000-year-old-virginia-flint-knife.html

          The video at the bottom of the page is worth the 42 minutes with the
          evidence presented by Dennis Stanford of the Smithsonian, a recognized
          lithic technology expert.
          ted

          PS Thanks to Larry, I present this again after posting the video
          several months ago.




        • joe white
          no problem. we are not very formal here. may the truth always be known very widely very soon. sitting owl ... From:
          Message 4 of 19 , Feb 11, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            
            no problem.  we are not very formal here.
             
            may the truth always be known very widely very soon.
             
            sitting owl
             
             
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: Jeff
            Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 2:45 PM
            Subject: Re: [ancient_waterways_society] Solutrean Evidence

             

             Correction--should have written "Chief White"--no offense intended.

            While I am accustomed to thinking of myself as a paleface, I at least have some Pawnee, Western Cherokee, and Mohawk ancestry.

            Warm Regards,

            Jeff Lewin


            Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

            Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 20:08:05 +0000
            To: Ancient Waterways Society<ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com>
            ReplyTo: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
            Cc: Wayne May<wayne@...>
            Subject: Re: [ancient_waterways_society] Solutrean Evidence

            Thank you, Mr. White, for taking these things into consideration. All I can add is that if you want to compose a credible record of Cherokee prehistory, then you will have to confront this issue, and find some credible resolution. Otherwise, you will merely be amusing the arkies, historians, etc.

            Warm Regards,

            Jeff Lewin


            Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

            From: "joe white" <joe_white@...>
            Sender: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
            Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 13:01:59 -0600
            To: <ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com>
            ReplyTo: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
            Cc: Terry Miller<walosi25@...>; Pamela Sexton<psexton50@...>; wayne<wayne@...>; Will Blueotter, White Roots of Peace Council NAC<nighthawkwebworks@...>
            Subject: Re: [ancient_waterways_society] Solutrean Evidence

            Siyo,
             
            it will all fit together at the ends of the various research projects.
             
            look how far we have come with the DNA in the past 13 years.
             
            Scott Wolter,  Donald Panther-Yates, Chief Rogers, Blueotter,
            Terry Miller, Wayne May, and many others are working to bring all of this
            together where we can easily understand it.
             
            I am sure that when it is ready, Wayne May will publish the results
            in Ancient American Magazine.
             
            keep up this important research.
             
            shalom,
             
            sitting owl 
            ----- Original Message --
             
             
             
            ---
            From: Jeff
            Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 12:12 PM
            Subject: Re: [ancient_waterways_society] Solutrean Evidence

             

            My point was not to give you a hard time, or to mock your claims. Insofar as you show concern for your heritage, and the prehistory of your nation, I certainly have no objection, and wish you all the best. I was just pointing out that there is an existing historical and archaeological record, and if I am right in suspecting that you hope, where possible, to harmonize your proposed prehistory and chronology with the existing record of history and archaeology, issues such as this may arise.

            Over the years, the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_event>, which I alluded to in my earlier post, was promoted in some articles I read. Upon reading through Wikipedia's entry on this subject, it no longer seems that this hypothesis offers a credible explanation of the Late Pleistocene extinction. Contrary to what I had previously read, the supposedly coinciding extinction of paleo-indian populations also seem to have been disproven, so I willingly yield to you on this point, and, in fairness, will give some further consideration to the chronology and prehistory you propose.

            If I remember rightly, the Eastern Cherokee Nation have recently begun to trace their ancestry to the Old Testament Patriarch Abraham (according to Chief Joe White? Chief White Owl??). My understanding of the accepted history, prehistory, and chronology make this claim a bit more difficult to reconcile with your proposed Solutrean origin of the Cherokee. The time frame proposed by archaeologists for known Solutrean sites predates Abraham's time in the 17th century B.C. by several millenia. Tying these threads together would seem to pose a more serious challenge to your proposed prehistory for the Cherokee.

            Warm Regards,

            Jeff


            Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

            From: Prophecykeepers Foundation <prophecykeepersdotcom@...>
            Sender: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
            Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 19:16:17 -0800 (PST)
            To: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com<ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com>
            ReplyTo: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [ancient_waterways_society] Solutrean Evidence

            This is what my Cherokee ancestors have insisted for centuries... that we migrated here from across the eastern ocean. Ethnologists figured that out in the 1930s.



            From: Ted Sojka <tedsojka@...>
            To: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Saturday, February 9, 2013 10:29 PM
            Subject: [ancient_waterways_society] Solutrean Evidence

             
            http://outofatlantis.blogspot.com/2012/03/19000-year-old-virginia-flint-knife.html

            The video at the bottom of the page is worth the 42 minutes with the
            evidence presented by Dennis Stanford of the Smithsonian, a recognized
            lithic technology expert.
            ted

            PS Thanks to Larry, I present this again after posting the video
            several months ago.


          • joe white
            yup. sitting owl ... From: Prophecykeepers Foundation To:
            Message 5 of 19 , Feb 11, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              
              yup.
               
              sitting owl
              ----- Original Message -----
              Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 4:18 PM
              Subject: Re: [ancient_waterways_society] Solutrean Evidence

               

              Another point is the traditional Cherokee do not claim to have a single genesis... we do know that we have had influxes of many different groups of travelers over a long period of time... we even have a special clan for them so they can be taught how to be Cherokee.

              Tahlequah has rewritten history in some instances e.g in the case of Sequoyah.

              We have cultural memories of some of our ancestors that migrated here from off-planet. There is no plausible explanation for what happened in Sumeria anciently other than extra-terrestrial intervention.

              Our original Cherokee language is NOT Being spoken and people assume we are Iroquoian, which is not true.

              Dr Charles Jahtlohi Rogers is one of maybe 15 people (maybe even less) among the Cherokee who can even begins to understand and/or explain our ancient linguistic history.

              Generally, most Cherokees don't know and they don't want to know either.





              .


              From: joe white <joe_white@...>
              To: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
              Cc: Terry Miller <walosi25@...>; Pamela Sexton <psexton50@...>; wayne <wayne@...>; "Will Blueotter, White Roots of Peace Council NAC" <nighthawkwebworks@...>
              Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 1:01 PM
              Subject: Re: [ancient_waterways_society] Solutrean Evidence

               
              
              Siyo,
               
              it will all fit together at the ends of the various research projects.
               
              look how far we have come with the DNA in the past 13 years.
               
              Scott Wolter,  Donald Panther-Yates, Chief Rogers, Blueotter,
              Terry Miller, Wayne May, and many others are working to bring all of this
              together where we can easily understand it.
               
              I am sure that when it is ready, Wayne May will publish the results
              in Ancient American Magazine.
               
              keep up this important research.
               
              shalom,
               
              sitting owl 
              ----- Original Message --
               
               
               
              ---
              From: Jeff
              Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 12:12 PM
              Subject: Re: [ancient_waterways_society] Solutrean Evidence

               
              My point was not to give you a hard time, or to mock your claims. Insofar as you show concern for your heritage, and the prehistory of your nation, I certainly have no objection, and wish you all the best. I was just pointing out that there is an existing historical and archaeological record, and if I am right in suspecting that you hope, where possible, to harmonize your proposed prehistory and chronology with the existing record of history and archaeology, issues such as this may arise.

              Over the years, the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_event>, which I alluded to in my earlier post, was promoted in some articles I read. Upon reading through Wikipedia's entry on this subject, it no longer seems that this hypothesis offers a credible explanation of the Late Pleistocene extinction. Contrary to what I had previously read, the supposedly coinciding extinction of paleo-indian populations also seem to have been disproven, so I willingly yield to you on this point, and, in fairness, will give some further consideration to the chronology and prehistory you propose.

              If I remember rightly, the Eastern Cherokee Nation have recently begun to trace their ancestry to the Old Testament Patriarch Abraham (according to Chief Joe White? Chief White Owl??). My understanding of the accepted history, prehistory, and chronology make this claim a bit more difficult to reconcile with your proposed Solutrean origin of the Cherokee. The time frame proposed by archaeologists for known Solutrean sites predates Abraham's time in the 17th century B.C. by several millenia. Tying these threads together would seem to pose a more serious challenge to your proposed prehistory for the Cherokee.

              Warm Regards,

              Jeff


              Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

              From: Prophecykeepers Foundation <prophecykeepersdotcom@...>
              Sender: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
              Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 19:16:17 -0800 (PST)
              To: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com<ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com>
              ReplyTo: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [ancient_waterways_society] Solutrean Evidence

              This is what my Cherokee ancestors have insisted for centuries... that we migrated here from across the eastern ocean. Ethnologists figured that out in the 1930s.



              From: Ted Sojka <tedsojka@...>
              To: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Saturday, February 9, 2013 10:29 PM
              Subject: [ancient_waterways_society] Solutrean Evidence

               
              http://outofatlantis.blogspot.com/2012/03/19000-year-old-virginia-flint-knife.html

              The video at the bottom of the page is worth the 42 minutes with the
              evidence presented by Dennis Stanford of the Smithsonian, a recognized
              lithic technology expert.
              ted

              PS Thanks to Larry, I present this again after posting the video
              several months ago.




            • Rick O
              The anti-comet theory as described in Wikipedia is questioned even by Wikipedia: The neutrality
              Message 6 of 19 , Feb 12, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                The "anti-comet" theory as described in Wikipedia is questioned even by Wikipedia: "The neutrality of this article is disputedRelevant discussion may be found on the talk page."

                Several confirming experiments have indeed occurred and been juried and are either in the publication process or are awaiting an open slot in a journal. Rick Firestone may yet be vindicated on this one.



                --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "joe white" wrote:
                >
                > yup.
                >
                > sitting owl
                > ----- Original Message -----
                > From: Prophecykeepers Foundation
                > To: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
                > Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 4:18 PM
                > Subject: Re: [ancient_waterways_society] Solutrean Evidence
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Another point is the traditional Cherokee do not claim to have a single genesis... we do know that we have had influxes of many different groups of travelers over a long period of time... we even have a special clan for them so they can be taught how to be Cherokee.
                >
                > Tahlequah has rewritten history in some instances e.g in the case of Sequoyah.
                >
                > We have cultural memories of some of our ancestors that migrated here from off-planet. There is no plausible explanation for what happened in Sumeria anciently other than extra-terrestrial intervention.
                >
                > Our original Cherokee language is NOT Being spoken and people assume we are Iroquoian, which is not true.
                >
                > Dr Charles Jahtlohi Rogers is one of maybe 15 people (maybe even less) among the Cherokee who can even begins to understand and/or explain our ancient linguistic history.
                >
                > Generally, most Cherokees don't know and they don't want to know either.
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > .
                >
                >
                >
                > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                > From: joe white
                > To: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
                > Cc: Terry Miller ; Pamela Sexton ; wayne ; "Will Blueotter, White Roots of Peace Council NAC"
                > Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 1:01 PM
                > Subject: Re: [ancient_waterways_society] Solutrean Evidence
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > 
                > Siyo,
                >
                > it will all fit together at the ends of the various research projects.
                >
                > look how far we have come with the DNA in the past 13 years.
                >
                > Scott Wolter, Donald Panther-Yates, Chief Rogers, Blueotter,
                > Terry Miller, Wayne May, and many others are working to bring all of this
                > together where we can easily understand it.
                >
                > I am sure that when it is ready, Wayne May will publish the results
                > in Ancient American Magazine.
                >
                > keep up this important research.
                >
                > shalom,
                >
                > sitting owl
                > ----- Original Message --
                >
                >
                >
                > ---
                > From: Jeff
                > To: Ancient Waterways Society
                > Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 12:12 PM
                > Subject: Re: [ancient_waterways_society] Solutrean Evidence
                >
                >
                >
                > My point was not to give you a hard time, or to mock your claims. Insofar as you show concern for your heritage, and the prehistory of your nation, I certainly have no objection, and wish you all the best. I was just pointing out that there is an existing historical and archaeological record, and if I am right in suspecting that you hope, where possible, to harmonize your proposed prehistory and chronology with the existing record of history and archaeology, issues such as this may arise.
                >
                > Over the years, the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis , which I alluded to in my earlier post, was promoted in some articles I read. Upon reading through Wikipedia's entry on this subject, it no longer seems that this hypothesis offers a credible explanation of the Late Pleistocene extinction. Contrary to what I had previously read, the supposedly coinciding extinction of paleo-indian populations also seem to have been disproven, so I willingly yield to you on this point, and, in fairness, will give some further consideration to the chronology and prehistory you propose.
                >
                > If I remember rightly, the Eastern Cherokee Nation have recently begun to trace their ancestry to the Old Testament Patriarch Abraham (according to Chief Joe White? Chief White Owl??). My understanding of the accepted history, prehistory, and chronology make this claim a bit more difficult to reconcile with your proposed Solutrean origin of the Cherokee. The time frame proposed by archaeologists for known Solutrean sites predates Abraham's time in the 17th century B.C. by several millenia. Tying these threads together would seem to pose a more serious challenge to your proposed prehistory for the Cherokee.
                >
                > Warm Regards,
                >
                > Jeff
                >
                >
                >
                > Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
                >
                > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                >
                > From: Prophecykeepers Foundation
                > Sender: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
                > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 19:16:17 -0800 (PST)
                > To: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
                > ReplyTo: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
                > Subject: Re: [ancient_waterways_society] Solutrean Evidence
                >
                >
                > This is what my Cherokee ancestors have insisted for centuries... that we migrated here from across the eastern ocean. Ethnologists figured that out in the 1930s.
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                > From: Ted Sojka
                > To: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
                > Sent: Saturday, February 9, 2013 10:29 PM
                > Subject: [ancient_waterways_society] Solutrean Evidence
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > http://outofatlantis.blogspot.com/2012/03/19000-year-old-virginia-flint-knife.html
                >
                > The video at the bottom of the page is worth the 42 minutes with the
                > evidence presented by Dennis Stanford of the Smithsonian, a recognized
                > lithic technology expert.
                > ted
                >
                > PS Thanks to Larry, I present this again after posting the video
                > several months ago.
                >
              • Jeff
                I liked that article, but the associated map is certainly mistaken in advocating the now obsolete Ice Bridge theory, which never provided any suitable
                Message 7 of 19 , Feb 13, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  I liked that article, but the associated map is certainly mistaken in advocating the now obsolete Ice Bridge theory, which never provided any suitable explanation for how Asian immigrants were supposed to have crossed from Beringia, over the 1,500+ miles of barren Late Pleistocene glaciers, in order to reach habitable lands to the South.

                  Warm Regards,

                  Jeff



                  Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: Ted Sojka <tedsojka@...>
                  Sender: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
                  Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2013 22:29:16
                  To: <ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com>
                  Reply-To: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [ancient_waterways_society] Solutrean Evidence

                  http://outofatlantis.blogspot.com/2012/03/19000-year-old-virginia-flint-knife.html

                  The video at the bottom of the page is worth the 42 minutes with the
                  evidence presented by Dennis Stanford of the Smithsonian, a recognized
                  lithic technology expert.
                  ted

                  PS Thanks to Larry, I present this again after posting the video
                  several months ago.


                  ------------------------------------

                  Yahoo! Groups Links
                • Ted Sojka
                  If they can boat from ireland and Spain, they could boat from Siberia to Alaska. Skin boats have been around way before St. Brendon. Did you see video at the
                  Message 8 of 19 , Feb 13, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    If they can boat from ireland and Spain, they could boat from Siberia to Alaska.  Skin boats have been around way before St. Brendon.  

                    Did you see video at the bottom of the article?  A lecture, but one that gives the evidence.


                    On Feb 13, 2013, at 8:35 PM, Jeff wrote:

                     

                    I liked that article, but the associated map is certainly mistaken in advocating the now obsolete Ice Bridge theory, which never provided any suitable explanation for how Asian immigrants were supposed to have crossed from Beringia, over the 1,500+ miles of barren Late Pleistocene glaciers, in order to reach habitable lands to the South.

                    Warm Regards,

                    Jeff



                    Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: Ted Sojka tedsojka@...>
                    Sender: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
                    Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2013 22:29:16
                    To: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com>
                    Reply-To: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: [ancient_waterways_society] Solutrean Evidence

                    http://outofatlantis.blogspot.com/2012/03/19000-year-old-virginia-flint-knife.html

                    The video at the bottom of the page is worth the 42 minutes with the
                    evidence presented by Dennis Stanford of the Smithsonian, a recognized
                    lithic technology expert.
                    ted

                    PS Thanks to Larry, I present this again after posting the video
                    several months ago.


                    ------------------------------------

                    Yahoo! Groups Links




                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.