Four Millennia Old Noodles Found In China

mollten writes "According to BBC News, the world's oldest noodles have been found at the Lajia site in China. Carbon Dating has found the remains to be over 4000 years old." From the article: "Prior to the discovery of noodles at Lajia, the earliest written record of noodles is traced to a book written during the East Han Dynasty sometime between AD 25 and 220, although it remained a subject of debate whether the Chinese, the Italians, or the Arabs invented it first ... Our discovery indicates that noodles were first produced in China."

Comments

No, it's not

[JoeBuck]

Creationists (especially the "young earth" kind that compute the age of the earth by counting up the "begats" in the Bible) claim that carbon dating is inaccurate, because they need it to be inaccurate. They also think, wrongly, that if they can kill carbon dating, they can kill all evidence that the world is older than they say it is.

Also, carbon dating isn't used for anything as old as dinosaur remains, so sorry, tossing out carbon dating won't let you put a younger date on dinosaur fossils.

Re:No, it's not

[Hannah E. Davis]

IANAEBGOA (I am not an evolutionary biologist, geologist or archeologist), but...

For Carbon dating, "the current maximum radiocarbon age limit lies in the range between 58,000 and 62,000 years" (from wikipedia). So... pretty recent, in the grand scheme of things.

Wikipedia also has an article on radiometric dating in general which outlines some types of radiometric dating that work for much older samples.

Also, when we're dealing with dinosaur remains, even IF we're off by hundreds or even thousands of years, it's not going to affect our data very much. We're dealing with such a large time scale that determining roughly when a creature died is often good enough -- usually we just want to know when some species existed compared to some other species, and species are usually pretty good about lasting for at least a few thousand years.

In any case, if we determine that something is... say... roughly 60-65 million years old, that huge error range doesn't change the fact that the evidence blatantly contradicts Young Earth theory ;)

Re:No, it's not (OT)

[DarkProphet]

... and its a funny thing about the 'begats'... each generation (with a couple exceptions) has a somewhat shorter life expectancy, starting at 900-some odd years and gradually declining...

Creationists can't swallow evolution, but 1000 year old men sounds plausable?

By any sane measure (heh, ironic) using the 'begats', the world is only about 15-20 generations older than it was when christ was born, which would make it much YOUNGER than the creationists believe. I say a branch of science aughtta lay that one out on the table ;-)

Then there is the little problem that even with super high-resolution spy satellites, we still haven't found Eden or that big flaming sword that guards its entrance... heh.

And the number 1 least logical thing about this post? I am a protestant christian ;-)