Tu le-ai studiat? :D
folland a scris:Colin Renfrew
Poate imi explici si mie cum putea Colin Renfrew care a studiat civilizatii neolitice, si care este membru al McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, care studiaza arheozoologia si arheobotanica (cauta sa vezi cu ce se ocupa astea, cam din ce perioada de timp sunt obiectele de cercetare) sa sustina ideea stupida ca pamantul nu are mai mult de 6000 de ani. :) Unde si in ce carte a scris ce spui tu ca a scris, da-mi te rog numele cartii si citatul exact, in context.
folland a scris:C.W.Ferguson
Dar tu ai citit ceva de Ferguson asta? Uite, eu nu am auzit de el pana acum, si am cautat pe net: omu' a scris o carte "Dendrochronology of Bristlecone Pine: A Progress Report" in care demonstreaza cum se poate data prin dendrocronologie pana la acum 8500 de ani, metoda folosita tocmai pentru calibrarea datarii cu carbon... dar hai, fie ca tine, spune-mi in ce carte spune ca C14 nu mai e bun dupa 6000 de ani, si da-mi citatul in context.
Ooo, stai, ca am gasit ceva super tare de la Ferguson asta, despre datarea cu radiocarbon si caliobrarea cu analiza dendrocronologica... ia citeste tu aici:
"After an organism dies, the carbon isotope begins to decompose at a steady half-life rate of every 5,730 years. Then, to obtain the age of a specimen, scientists compare the amount of carbon-14 in it to the amount of carbon-12. By using this ratio and carbon- 14's half-life, they can determine the date the organism died" (Gidwitz, 2001). This approach was thought for years to be an accurate measure of time, but the dating of bristlecone pines with known ages brought up startling discrepancies. Now presented with a way to cross-check the carbon-14 technique, scientists compared the two records for calibration. Results showed that, "for material in the period 4,000 to 3,000 B.C., dates obtained by the conventional carbon-14 method are about 800 years more recent than dates established dendochronologically" ( Ferguson , 1968). "
Deci draga, daca analiza radiocarbon e gresita e gresita in sens "invers" adica face ca acele mostre sa para mai tinere, nu mai vechi.
folland a scris:M.S.Kieth
Si asta cine e?
folland a scris:G.M.Anderson
Ce a scris asta, cine este? Lasa-ma sa ghicesc, asta a venit cu cochiliile? 
Da detalii mama draga, daca i-ai citit tu pe astia.
folland a scris:Melvin Cook .......
Adica asta:
"Dr. Cook was an ardent creationist, and his writings on the subject are frequently quoted or cited by creationists. ....
One argument for a "young earth," which he wrote about in his book, Science and Mormonism, attempted to show that the atmosphere had allegedly not yet reached an equilibrium state with respect to carbon-14 creation/decay, and postulated that the atmosphere of earth was in fact not older than 6,000 years."
Pot sa pun pariu ca si nenea Anderson si nenea Kieth sunt creationisti "ardentzi". Doar ca acum mi-e lene sa caut.
Deci, imi esti dator cu:
cartile lui Renfrew si Ferguson in care spun de C14 ca este total gresita la o vechime de mai mult de 6000 de ani, inclusiv citatul in context,... de ailalti doi (Kieth si Anderson) nu te mai intreb, ca mi-e clar ce hram poarta.
A, si sa nu uitam, astept sa imi spui ce e cu scoicile alea datate gresit la o vechime foarte mare...
folland a scris:iar daca metoda merge pana in 60 000 ani,celelalte milioane sunt niste ipoteze.Corect?!
De ce ar fi doar niste ipoteze?