[b-hebrew] Language Evolution
kwrandolph at email.com
Wed Sep 21 16:52:56 EDT 2005
Your whole scenario is a modern fable. It is not scientific
as it is not based on observable phenomena, as James
Read says. All radiometric dating methods are suspect,
and for the same reasons, not just C14. Whether the fable
is accurate or not is outside the realm of this forum.
Karl W. Randolph.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk at qaya.org>
> On 21/09/2005 16:35, Read, James C wrote:
> > ...
> > Africa as a basin of life seems credible, although i would
> > disagree with the date.
> > I come from a highly scientific background (especially chemistry) and remain
> > unimpressed by many dating methods which are dependent on
> > variables which we cannot
> > claim to have enough knowledge about (e.g. carbon dating is
> > directly proportional
> > to the amounts of radiation the substance has been exposed to. as
> > we cannot know
> > for sure that past exposure was consistent with present exposure
> > we cannot rely
> > completely on such methods).
> Just to clarify, the datings I mention do not depend on radiocarbon,
> which is anyway accepted to be useless before about 40,000 years ago -
> although the tie-up to the 'Ubaid period probably does so. Some of the
> estimated dates are based on genetic estimates which everyone accepts
> are highly approximate. But others are based on much more reliable
> techniques such as the counting of layers in the ice in Greenland, which
> allows very specific dating of climatic changes and anomalies. Some of
> the ages are based on a uranium-thorium method. So we have several
> independent methods pointing to approximately the same dates. Anyway, my
> point is not so much in the precise dating as in the general picture.
> Peter Kirk
> peter at qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk at qaya.org (work)
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
More information about the b-hebrew