This is the problem. The expected date was found, and the test was considered accurate based on that result.Quote
C14 is based on the measurable decay rate of the molecule. Libby did not determine the rate after doing a test, he did the test to see if it matched the expected date.
This is not science. The "expected date" is an assumption.
I think everyone knows the test measures the decay rate of carbon, which was at first assumed to be constant. Now they know it isn't. All they have to do if figure out what caused the many fluctuations and when. Meanwhile, I have no faith in the test. However, you are free to have complete faith in it.
But I do recognize it. And now you do also. I am questioning the entire field, very astute of you, because it's not science. It's pottery pieces and assumptions.Quote
So desparate to argue about pyramid dating that you don't recognize you are questioning/denying the entire feild of archaeological history in order to support your silly claims.
???? Like 300, 800 yrs ago? I haven't heard an Egyptologist come up with this one!Quote
Since the casing was intact up until a few centuries ago...
And this logic follows on the heels of an Avry first - casing was intact until when Avry, Mamun's time??Quote
even if your fantasy particles contaminated the samples they would come back with dates only a few centuries old.
With all the flying and crawling insects in the desert, you think they are "fantasy particles".
I think you envision a fantasy desert with clean pure sand.