I can't research it, because you didn't provide enough information. If you at least cited your claim, I could look into it. If you can't cite it, retract it.
If you at least cited your claim, I could look into it. If you can’t cite it, retract it.
Oh, OK, you talked me into it, since your so insistant, give me some time and I’ll look for the book when I get home, I’m on vacation right now, I’ll be home in a week or so. I couldn’t possibly retract the truth, now could I?
Gary don’t bother, or at least don’t put too much effort into looking for it- you’re in a no win situation- no matter what you post, there is ‘all bases covered’ answer. Freshly killed seal carcasses dating 1000’s of years old are explained away by ‘Carbon contamination due to increased presence of old carbon in the arctic waters circulating around with new carbon’, when freshly killed snails in the desert are dated to 1000’s of years old, it is explained away by claiming ‘the material dated was contaminated either by human means, or by ‘old or new’ carbon in the atmosphere’ - the all encompassing ‘you can’t carbon date anything under 150 years old’ argument will also be thrown out, yet when an old example of a known material that is older than 150 years, but younger than say a few thousand is dated, and an old age of say 25000 years is given, then again, the claim of contamination is given or the excuse that ‘well it’s not really old enough and we would expect screwey ages as a result of testing’ is given.