To: ForGod'sSake
Conspicuously missing from the article cited for this thread along with another theory; that is, carbon dates, particularly associated with paleoindian dates, were quite possibly much too young -- by about 40,000 - 50,000 years. I gather that theory has been abandoned. I was never very comfortable with that idea. I think they are on a better track with this current article. And, they seem to have some pretty good evidence.
40 posted on
10/02/2007 8:18:28 AM PDT by
Coyoteman
(Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
To: Coyoteman
I was never very comfortable with that idea. No doubt; I honestly don't know enough about the "mechanics" of the theory to form an opinion on way or the other. That's why I pinged you to the article. From the looks of things, this may be the reason Firestone and Topping split the sheets -- at least for a while.
Did you happen to read Topping's COUNTER-REBUTTAL to see how well he defended their or HIS conclusions re the carbon dating "anamolies"?
41 posted on
10/02/2007 9:56:39 AM PDT by
ForGod'sSake
(ABCNNBCBS: An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson