Thanos5150 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What is implausible Audrey is for this to
> happen amongst 400+ samples from 2 different
> studies taken 11yrs apart. For a sample to be
> 18,000BC or more to get it to c. 3,000BC its
> modern contamination would need to be 50%.

Yes, and we do not know how much contamination they found. Evidently it does happen because they are allowing for that high of a percentage.

> You also quote the pretreatment part where they
> specifically examine each sample to remove such
> contaminants to avoid this very contamination. If
> all these samples were collected with fingers,
> stowed away in shirt pockets, and the whole sample
> used as it was found there would be an argument to
> be made, but obviously this is not how it is done.
> It is the job and the expertise of the lab to
> ferret out and test the most pristine section of
> the sample.

There is also the part of "Each sample submitted for dating has its own specific depositional history." They must also consider what material the sample was embedded in as this effects the C14 level.

> You guys are harping on this as if it
> were only one sample and one test but it was over
> 400 over 2 different collections and they all say
> the same thing.

I'm not harping on anything, just trying to understand the process and why so many academics have pointed out the flaws in it.