Origyptian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> R Avry Wilson Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Ladies and gentlemen, in a nutshell (pun?),
> here
> > we can perfectly demonstrate the problem with
> > extreme 'alternative' thinkers:
> >
> >

Quote

And since I'm not willing to invest the
> > time to gather more knowledge on the subject
> than
> > you have, I will consider yours an informed
> > opinion.

> >
> > Unreal.
>
> Avry, please let me know any problem you have with
> my assessment of the '95study that Audrey was referring to.

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 that!")

Quote

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:

Quote

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 BC

And there is your answer. Can you see why the C14 study could be the problem? Allow me to point it out.

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.

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.

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.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 14-Jun-16 16:50 by R Avry Wilson.