Elliotte> This not at all what Niemetz is doing. He does not question the
Elliotte> basic science of C-14 dating. He's questioning the accuracy of
Elliotte> certain C-14 samples to within a few hundred years margin of
Elliotte> error. Specifically, he suggests that original incorrect
Elliotte> assumptions about the dates of certain samples led C-14 dating
Elliotte> for that period to be incorrectly calibrated. That's a lot more
Elliotte> plausible than claiming that the Earth is only 5000 years
Elliotte> old. Even if Niemetz is completely right, this would have no
Elliotte> significant impact on issues like when the Earth was formed and
Elliotte> when dinosaurs lived. Any paleontologist/geologist would tell
Elliotte> you that their estimates aren't accurate to within +-300 years,
Elliotte> with or without C-14 dating.
Ahh, well then. I stand corrected, at least until I've read the C14 thing.
I've been bashing nonsense in other forums recently and the language in the
history paper sounded too much like an intro to a proof that Earth is flat. I
was caught up in the heat of battle :-)
Elliotte> The question of why Europe suddenly fell into the Dark Ages has
Elliotte> been a hotly debated subject for a long time. It's astonishing
Elliotte> to consider that the answer might be that it never happened at
Elliotte> all. --
The answer is actually quite simple: they were working on a character set! It
took longer in those days.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Leisher
Computing Research Lab Television has raised writing
New Mexico State University to a new low.
Box 30001, Dept. 3CRL -- Samuel Goldwyn
Las Cruces, NM 88003
