> This is the problem. The expected date was found,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.
> and the test was considered accurate based on that
> This is not science. The "expected date" is an
Yes, the 'expected date' is an assumption, but it is a best guess assumption using relative dating, ie other context. Being that those who made the assimption know full well it is only that, thus employing a C14 test helps to check on the validity of the best guess.
> 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.
Are you locked in a time warp 50 years ago? They _knew_ this about C14, then went to considerable scientific lengths since then to account for dendro balances and the nuclear age fluctuations. I'm sure you've read C14 reports to know the process is tediuos and explicit in its execution.
> Meanwhile, I have no faith in the test.
Why? Do you a scientific test you could suggest be used to show C14 is useless, or are you dismissing on 'faith' argumentation? I'm sure many scientists around the world await your paper on this.
> However, you are free to have complete faith in
It's not faith I have, it's an adherence to the structural proofs of the science backing it up.
> But I do recognize it. And now you do also. IQuote
> 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.
> am questioning the entire field, very
> astute of you, because it's not science. It's
> pottery pieces and assumptions.
Again, the world awaits your scientifically peer reviwed study on how C14 is all wrong. Quite the different task there merely stating it, eh? Until you have the science to show it is wrong, you remain wrong. That's just the way it is.
> ???? Like 300, 800 yrs ago? I haven't heard anQuote
Since the casing was intact up until a few
> centuries ago...
> Egyptologist come up with this one!
You've been at this how long and you've never run across this basic piece of knowledge on the casing? Its not hard to find.
> And this logic follows on the heels of an AvryQuote
even if your fantasy particles contaminated
> the samples they would come back with dates only a
> few centuries old.
> first - casing was intact until when Avry, Mamun's
No, not Mamoun's time. Its an easy piece of research. I kindly suggest you have a look for it.
> 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.
Didn't say that. Their being able to penetrate casing (and in some cases into the core structure) is a fantasy.
(Edit to add missing word)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 14-Jul-16 17:38 by R Avry Wilson.