Biblical Hebrew Forum

[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)
http://www.qaya.org/



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.3/107 - Release Date: 20/09/2005