> Origyptian Wrote:
> Sure, Philip.
> In your link to your assessment you posed this
> question (I sure hope you don't come back with
> "What?!? Where did I say that? I never said
Oddly, the authors believe the fault was in
> the C-14 studies and not the historic chronology.
> No explanation was offered to explain why the
> authors did not allow for the possibility that the
> historic chronology may be at fault and not the
> C-14 studies.
> Now, from the article posted by Lee:
Surprisingly, the earliest date 3809 ± 160
> BC of the Great Pyramid was given by two charcoal
> samples from a top layer of the Great Pyramid.
> These samples could date to as early as 3969 BC or
> as late as 3649 BC. Various pieces of evidence
> suggest that all great pyramids were built over
> older monuments, but then we would expect to find
> the earliest dates in lower and inner rather than
> in higher and outer layers. Anyhow, a wood sample
> from the same top layer gave a more realistic date
> of 3101 ± 414 BC. But this date has a much wider
> range, from 3515 BC to 2749 BC. Another sample
> from the same layer gave the date 3020 ± 131 BC.
> Thirteen other samples from the lower outside
> layers of the Great Pyramid, all radiocarbon
> except two, ranged from 3090 ± 153 to 2853 ± 104
Thanos' "article" does not address the processes of C14 dating nor the processes of sampling. He merely uses the outcome of the tests. Therefore, his "article" does not answer the problems raised by Ori.
> Did the constructors have a time machine, i.e.
> built younger layers on the bottom, then went back
> in time to build older layers on top? No, they did
> not have a time machine, which is why the C14
> study was held suspect.
This also is irrelevant to the process of sampling and C14 dating.
> There is only one escape for you on this,
> Philip, and it is your proof beyond doubt the AEs
> had a time machine. I don't have time for your
> childish games. There's your answer.
Evidently you also do not have time to become educated on the complexities of C14 dating.
> And as for Audrey's blind faith in your
> assessment, shall I quote her again? She actually
> wrote she was not interested in even
> reviewing/questioning you opinion, preferring to
> accept what you say simply because you said it.
> Again, UNREAL.
What "faith" I have, and where it lies, has no relevance to the accuracy of the C14 results or the process of sampling that would effect the accuracy of the results. My "faith" is of no interest to the readers who may however, be interested in the process of C14 dating.
I look forward to your rebuttal on the problems raised by Ori. If you do not have the knowledge to discuss them, I trust you will use common sense and defer to those who do have the knowledge. So far, no one on this board has answered the questions in Ori's mini article.