Jed, if you doubt that, then look up the reference themselves. Last time I
checked, "Science" is and was a reputable publication.
You like to make these qualified statements to try to wiggle yourself from a
tight spot. You claim these results are errors, outlier or instrument errors,.
Now, you are saying you wouldn't know. If you don't know, how can you say
they were instrument errors. How do you know they were imaginary, or fully
explicable or gathered by someone who does not understand how instruments work.
What qualifies you to make an assertion like that? Were you there?
You see, the problem with you is you have preconveived notions for a belief
system you hold dear. Anything that upsets that belief system, you reject as a
lie, an error, incompetence, etc. My friend, you are no better than Huzienga
when it comes to evaluating scientific evidence.
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 1:54 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
Jojo Iznart <jojoiznar...@gmail.com> wrote:
The examples I enumerated are samples that appear on a scientific paper of
wide circulation.
I doubt that, but for the sake of argument suppose it is true. Are you saying
these were mistakes? Or were they examples discovered by the authors, and used
to point out problems with the technique? An article on blood pressure monitors
would point out problems that produce the wrong readings, such as 180/160 when
the correct number is 130/85 (an actual example). Finding and explaining
problems is a good thing.
Do you think these are all errors?
I wouldn't know. I suspect these examples are either imaginary or fully
explicable, and they were gathered by someone who does not understand how
instruments work.
Don't you think they would have checked for errors before publishing it?
If these are errors, then the editors and authors failed to discover them.
That happens in science. It happens in every institution. That is why trains
sometimes smash together, airplanes crash, banks fail, programs give the wrong
answer or stop dead, and doctors sometimes amputate the wrong leg. People
everywhere, in all walks of life, are prone to making drastic mistakes. To err
is human.
I was challenged for proof that Carbon dating is unreliable, these are just
a few I found.
You do not have enough expertise in this subject to find proof, or judge
whether you have found it.
- Jed
