Re: Quote Mine Question for Kermit
- From: Chris <chris.linthompson@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 17:52:28 -0800 (PST)
On Mar 3, 7:30 pm, "[M]adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Chris wrote:
On Mar 3, 9:54 am, "[M]adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Rodjk #613 wrote:
I am looking for information on Dr. Robert Lee. Supposedly, he
wrote an article for the Anthropological Journal of Canada in or
about 1981 in which he 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.”
Can anyone give me more details on this?
From what I found in my searches, Robert Lee is the son of Thomas
Lee, who had some disagreements with standard archeology and
published the journal himself. Any more info would be helpful.
Thanks,
Rodjk #613
Which is exactly why i say your daing methods are unreliable.
Not necessarly wrong
If they're unreliable, why do the same samples yield endlessly
repeatable results?
I don't think "unreliable" means what you think it means.
Chris
If it can fail the first time what makes you think it will not fail the
second or even 3rd time?
You have not shown it to have failed at all. Please transfer your
attention to my other post in this thread.
Chris
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Okimoto the Atheist topic
- Next by Date: Re: Scripture as literal history: A query
- Previous by thread: OT: The Onion
- Next by thread: The scientific number of human hairs
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
