How Reliable are Dating Methods?

Post Reply
Skepti Que
Member
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: California, USA

How Reliable are Dating Methods?

Post by Skepti Que » Mon Sep 22, 2003 6:13 pm

The text below was found by following a teaser on Netscape's opening page. I don't think I can add the link in the same post. Watch for the link later. Can this really be true?
SK

Part of the Old Testament Proven True

Read 2 Kings 20:20 and 2 Chronicles 32:30 in the Old Testament and you'll find a reference to a tunnel that was built in 700 B.C. by order of King Hezekiah to protect Jerusalem's water supply against an Assyrian siege. Long considered an engineering feat for that day and age, the serpentine tunnel ran 1,750 feet long and moved water from the Gihon spring across the entire city of ancient Jerusalem to the pool of Siloam.

Fast forward to modern-day Jerusalem. The Siloam Tunnel in that city matches the biblical description of King Hezekiah's tunnel. But is it really the same one? That question has stumped scholars for years, many of whom insisted the Siloam Tunnel was built centuries later than the Bible suggested in Kings and Chronicles. The only clue that survived for more than 2,700 years is an inscription discovered in 1880 on a tunnel wall that supported the link to King Hezekiah, although it did not name him specifically, reports The Associated Press.

Now geologists from the Cave Research Center at Hebrew University in Jerusalem think they have solved the mystery. By using radiocarbon testing to analyze the age of stalactite samples from the ceiling of the Siloam Tunnel and plant material recovered from its plaster floor, the biblical record and the tunnel's age have been confirmed, the researchers wrote in the journal Nature. The Siloam Tunnel is the one built by King Hezekiah.

This is also significant because it is the first time that a well-identified biblical structure has been subjected to extensive radiocarbon dating.

Even with all our modern-day technology and scientific knowledge, very little testing of biblical structures has been done to prove or disprove their age or authenticity. Why? The experts told AP such testing is difficult because it's often hard to identify such structures, they may be poorly preserved, or they may be restricted for various political or religious reasons.

The Siloam Tunnel is different. It's long been a tourist attraction. Anyone can wander in it and see the pick marks the original builders made in the walls to adjust their course so the tunnel would meet with a second team of workers who were heading toward them from the opposite end of the city. AP notes that those pick marks tell us how difficult it was to connect the two ends of the tunnel. "The tunnel is extraordinary, but these guys didn't know where they were going a lot of the time," Hershel Shanks, an expert on the history of Jerusalem who writes for the Biblical Archaeology Review, told AP. Still, he added, "It's nice to have scientific confirmation for what the vast majority of biblical scholars and archaeologists believe."

Skepti Que
Member
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: California, USA

Link

Post by Skepti Que » Mon Sep 22, 2003 6:17 pm

This is the link. It worked when I tried it. I guess you all know how to use it.


http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/pa ... icaltunnel

Jukia
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:12 am
Location: Hartford, CT

Post by Jukia » Tue Sep 23, 2003 10:49 am

I was under the impression that many creationsists distrusted dating methods. Are some more trustworthy than others and if so which ones and why?

Skepti Que
Member
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: California, USA

Dating Methods

Post by Skepti Que » Sat Oct 04, 2003 4:47 pm

I think it is commonly assumed by most creation scholars that after about 2,700 years before the present that the dating methods fail and reciproctiry failure increases at a geometric rate.
SQ

Jukia
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:12 am
Location: Hartford, CT

Post by Jukia » Mon Oct 06, 2003 4:14 pm

Is there a basis for that common assumption or is it one made to make the evidence fit with Genesis? Thanks

Post Reply