There’s basically no real basis for any of these dates you see on age estimates for most of the hominid remains in the world. RC dating even in theory is only good to around 50K years and the decay methods you read about for much older things don’t apply to hominid remains. Aside from everything else Gunnar Heinsohn has demonstrated that the stratigraphical basis for some of the age estimates involving neanderthal remains in caves are totally fubar and that there is no defensible basis for assigning more than about 100 years to a layering system which is normally assumed to involve about 60,000 years; that would be in “Wie Alt Ist Das Menschengeschlect?” The counts of tools and paraphernalia corresponds to about 100 years and not 60,000.
False. The hominid age estimates are based on many different lines of evidence. If you studied them, instead of just denying them, you would have a more valuable opinion on the subject.
RC dating even in theory is only good to around 50K years and the decay methods you read about for much older things don’t apply to hominid remains.
I know the range of radiocarbon dating; I do a lot of radiocarbon dates in my work. And the "decay methods" for older things do apply directly to hominid remains. If you date the volcanic layers above and below a specimen, you know a lot about the age of that specimen. Try the following paper:
Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.Aside from everything else Gunnar Heinsohn has demonstrated that the stratigraphical basis for some of the age estimates involving neanderthal remains in caves are totally fubar and that there is no defensible basis for assigning more than about 100 years to a layering system which is normally assumed to involve about 60,000 years; that would be in “Wie Alt Ist Das Menschengeschlect?” The counts of tools and paraphernalia corresponds to about 100 years and not 60,000.
From what I can see on the web Heinsohn is a crank. Why should anyone believe anything he says when the vast mountains of evidence show otherwise?
Face it, radiometric dating and several other lines of evidence all point in the same direction. Those who deny these dating methods need to come up with something better than Heinsohn or Velikovsky.