Your link does not say any dates before 5750bp, and explains why the earlier dates of 5750bp and 6940BP are too young due to younger carbon intrusion in the sample bone used. You would do well to read the article from beginning to end. There are many factors experts have to take into account when trying to get accurate carbon dates. They have done do here, and used other evidence showing dates before 7000bp. Like the cascade point which was made and used from 7000-12000bp ago. Completely independent dating evidence. The question is if you can control your bias to accept what good science shows you and give up this haplotype x supporting the Book of Mormon. It's been here long before Book of Mormon times. There is tons of evidence to this in so many ways, and why even believing LDS dismiss you.
They are using the before present time frame instead of the more familiar before Christ time caramel. 3750 bc (before Christ) = 5750 bp (before present) it's convenient that they kept dating kennwick UNTIL they got the date they WANTED.
Kennewick man a skeleton with Haplogroup x dna he dated to 9000 BP (7000BC) after several attempts. Kennwick man has been dated to 3750BC, 6410BC, 4130BC, and 6130BC.
bomgeography wrote:They are using the before present time frame instead of the more familiar before Christ time caramel. 3750 bc (before Christ) = 5750 bp (before present) it's convenient that they kept dating kennwick UNTIL they got the date they WANTED.
That date is still way before Book of Mormon times, and they didn't keep dating to get a date they wanted. I see you still have not read your own link. No one can help you until you do. I see also you ignored the cascade point which gives them dates from 7-12k years ago. Just keep ignoring the evidence for all to see.
They changed the first dating of Kennwick man by 3450 years. That same number used in the opposite direction from their very first dating falls well within the Book of Mormon timeline.
bomgeography wrote:They changed the first dating of Kennwick man by 3450 years. That same number used in the opposite direction from their very first dating falls well within the Book of Mormon timeline.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Read the article you linked. Are you really this ignorant? The earlier dates were contaminated by younger carbon resulting in earlier dates. In order to get dates to Book of Mormon times, forgetting that the area is far from your preferred area, you would need more younger carbon contaminating the bone samples. You are showing yourself the fool for all to see. You should be embarrassed.
bomgeography wrote:They changed the first dating of Kennwick man by 3450 years. That same number used in the opposite direction from their very first dating falls well within the Book of Mormon timeline.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Read the article you linked. Are you really this ignorant? The earlier dates were contaminated by younger carbon resulting in earlier dates. In order to get dates to Book of Mormon times, forgetting that the area is far from your preferred area, you would need more younger carbon contaminating the bone samples. You are showing yourself the fool for all to see. You should be embarrassed.
Kennewick man a skeleton with Haplogroup x dna he dated to 9000 BP (7000BC) after several attempts. Kennwick man has been dated to 3750BC, 6410BC, 4130BC, and 6130BC. That's a lot of mistakes
