Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Scott Creighton

The Pyramid (Re)Genesis Plan

206 posts in this topic

It should also be pointed out, per an article from 2007, that Hawass doesn't appear to know what radiocarbon dating can and can't tell us:

CAIRO (Reuters) – Egyptian archaeologists have found what they said could be the oldest human footprint in history in the country’s western desert, the Arab country’s antiquities’ chief said on Monday.

“This could go back about two million years,” said Zahi Hawass, the secretary general of the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities. “It could be the most important discovery in Egypt,” he told Reuters.

Archaeologists found the footprint, imprinted on mud and then hardened into rock, while exploring a prehistoric site in Siwa, a desert oasis.

Scientists are using carbon tests on plants found in the rock to determine its exact age, Hawass said.

Khaled Saad, the director of prehistory at the council, said that based on the age of the rock where the footprint was found, it could date back even further than the renowned 3-million year-old fossil Lucy, the partial skeleton of an ape-man, found in Ethiopia in 1974. (emphasis added)

Most archaeological interest in Egypt is focused on the time of the pharaohs.

Previously, the earliest human archaeological evidence from Egypt dated back around 200,000 years, Saad said.

The implication here, per Hawass, is that radiocarbon dating can help determine whether or not the organic materials in this footprint are 2 - 3 million years old. Since radiocarbon dating DOES NOT extend past approximately 50,000 years then its use is pointless in a 2 -3 million year timeframe. It should also be mentioned that, based on the half-life of C14, after 2 - 3 million years there would be nothing on which to test anyway. So much for Hawass' credibility regarding radiocarbon dating.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It should also be pointed out, per an article from 2007, that Hawass doesn't appear to know what radiocarbon dating can and can't tell us:

The implication here, per Hawass, is that radiocarbon dating can help determine whether or not the organic materials in this footprint are 2 - 3 million years old. Since radiocarbon dating DOES NOT extend past approximately 50,000 years then its use is pointless in a 2 -3 million year timeframe. It should also be mentioned that, based on the half-life of C14, after 2 - 3 million years there would be nothing on which to test anyway. So much for Hawass' credibility regarding radiocarbon dating.

cormac

SC: Remarkable - and sad! No sooner has the mighty Hawass fallen from his lofty perch than you turn on him like a pack of wolves. He no longer serves your purpose so you turn on him. How utterly pathetic.

Hawass is far from being alone in this view concerning the unreliabilty of C14 dating, to wit:

"Consequently, some Ancient Near Eastern archaeologists have gone on record stating that they do not accept dates based on 14C. For example, a reviewer of 14C dates from Sardinia concluded: “I will only accept … dates provided by [14C] as indicative when they do not blatantly contradict information already obtained by using [archaeological] methods” (Tinè 1998). And a respected Egyptologist says similarly: “I am mistrustful … [14C dating] does not often match with historical dating” (Wiener et al. 1995). Too, some archaeologists have said that if they attempt to publish 14C dates contradicting archaeo-historical chronologies, their papers are rejected (Nelson et al. 1990). One archaeologist, reviewing the situation for the eastern Mediterranean, concluded blandly: “… radiocarbon dates are invoked if they support a particular hypothesis … and dismissed if they do not” (Merrillees 1992) - from here

You would do well to read the above paper if you really want to understand some of the serious concerns with C14 dating, particularly as it pertains to the Near East.

Best wishes,

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He no longer serves your purpose so you turn on him. How utterly pathetic.

The only interest he served for me was bringing an interest in Ancient Egypt to the public.

You would do well to read the above paper if you really want to understand some of the serious concerns with C14 dating, particularly as it pertains to the Near East.

You would do well to understand that Dr. David Richards doesn't believe what you claim he does. Nor is Hawass as knowledgeable about radiocarbon dating as you claim he is. You've been shown to be wrong now, twice.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The only interest he served for me was bringing an interest in Ancient Egypt to the public.

SC: Sure - and we're meant to believe that!

CMA: You would do well to understand that Dr. David Richards doesn't believe what you claim he does. Nor is Hawass as knowledgeable about radiocarbon dating as you claim he is. You've been shown to be wrong now, twice.

SC: More bunkum from you. First of all show me where I made the claim re Dr Richards. You won't be able to do that. will you? No, you won't because I didn't actually make any claim re Dr Richards. I presented an article from the Telegraph by their science editor that made the claim. As for Hawass - I am sure he and countless other archaeologists will know more about the pitfalls of C14 dating and the erroneous dates it throws up than you give any of them credit for. How many C14 tests have you sent off and had back only to find that the C14 date contradicts dating by other means? I am sure Hawass has had many more than you ever have and thus better placed than you to comment.

Furthermore - Hawass isn't required to understand the science of C14 dating. But he most certainly will understand the 'erroneous' dates this science throws up (and their implication) which is why he made his comments about its unreliability.

So - you are wrong and wrong again. (No surprise there).

Very best wishes,

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: Sure - and we're meant to believe that!

What you believe is irrelevant.

SC: More bunkum from you. First of all show me where I made the claim re Dr Richards. You won't be able to do that. will you? No, you won't because I didn't actually make any claim re Dr Richards. I presented an article from the Telegraph by their science editor that made the claim.

You did, however, bring it up as if it was relevant to the discussion. So in that regard you did support it. It's neither relevant to the discussion nor is it what is being claimed as Dr. Richards was part of the group that set the standards for radiocarbon dating.

Hawass isn't required to understand the science of C14 dating.

He is required to know enough about it in order to form an intelligent critique, although evidently he doesn't because he didn't.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

What you believe is irrelevant.

SC: Likewise.

CMA: You did, however, bring it up as if it was relevant to the discussion. So in that regard you did support it. It's neither relevant to the discussion nor is it what is being claimed as Dr. Richards was part of the group that set the standards for radiocarbon dating.

SC: You said that it was my claim. It wasn't. You were wrong. Just accept it and stop wasting everyone's time.

CMAHe is required to know enough about it in order to form an intelligent critique, although evidently he doesn't because he didn't.

SC: Oh yes - it takes a rocket scientist to work out that a date received from one dating method seriously contradicts the 'accepted' date from other dating methods. And that it does so time and time and time again. Hawass knew enough from his experience of receiving 'erroneous' results back from C14 labs to convince him there is something seriously amiss with the technique. He doesn't need to know anything about the technicalities of C14 processing - the RESULTS when compared with 'accepted' results from elsewhere is all he needs. One need not be a meteorolgist to know which way the wind blows. You're argument is completely bogus and ridiculous. (No surprise there then).

Best wishes,

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Just wondering whether somebody posting topographic maps around here is incapable to find the real reason for the non-alignment....

GKQ5.jpg

:whistle:

Edited by questionmark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: With respect - but I don't give a hee-haw about a person's religious views. What matters to me is the science they present and whether or not it is valid. That you should make their religious views an issue is thoroughly deplorable and repugnant. Are we to now ignore those scientists who present good, solid scientific information simply because they go to church?

I have seen some stoop to low levels on this board to score some petty point. This is a new low - the lowest of the low. Reprehensible and you ought to be thoroughly ashamed of yourself.

Disgusted.

Scott Creighton

Oh, please. Dial it back, take a breath, and knock it off.

You know as well as I, Scott, how religion colors and affects scientific principles. Religion and science rarely, if ever, mix. Swede demonstrated that some of your citations were based on a religious bias, and it is a constant effort on the part of bible scientists and those of a similar attitude to misrepresent and distort scientific principals to forward their own agenda. (As for your other citations, they were shown to be authors of limited experience with the science in question.)

Quit trying to turn the facts around and, instead, deal with them reasonably and responsibly. The merit of your citations has been shown to be lacking. Deal with it. Cease with the ridiculous ad hominem attacks against posters and against orthodox science. You pick and choose which parts of science and history will work with your theme and openly discard the rest—which is a stalwart tactic of the fringe but not the stuff of responsible research.

I see again you're still shaking your pom-poms for Hawass (your response to Swede, in Post 98). Evidently you completely ignored my earlier post (see Post 60) showing Hawass's lack of credibility in this regard, and in others—those technologies he listed as alternate means of dating were not even means of dating. Please do not selectively argue. Deal with these counterpoints in sum total, if you're using us as a sounding board.

I still very much want to discuss and debate your theme, Scott. There are points you made in Post 94 to which I would like to return. But if it's your goal to drive me or others away by throwing tantrums, insulting us, and applying misdirection, your tactic might work. I've never seen you stoop to such tactics in the past. You usually have not evidenced the sort of arrogant attitude where you have to be right and everyone else must be wrong just because you typed a paper and posted a link to it. Usually you've been more open to discussion and debate in the past.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

To the others in this discussion: I'm still interested but am wavering. I'll step back to cool off, and will revisit this discussion after a while. Right now my patience is very thin. Meanwhile, carry on. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Religion and science rarely, if ever, mix.

SC: Exactly! So stop mixing them. Deal with the SCIENCE not the faith. Attempt to disprove the science (if you can) and leave the faith out of it.

Still disgusted.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You said that it was my claim. It wasn't. You were wrong. Just accept it and stop wasting everyone's time.

And what you refuse to get is that fact that no matter how you want to word it, it's still wrong. Dr. Richards is not currently claiming anything like what you'd have others believe. So evidently he's learned alot that you haven't.

Hawass knew enough from his experience of receiving 'erroneous' results back from C14 labs to convince him there is something seriously amiss with the technique.

And he has colleagues who don't agree with him. He also doesn't speak for the entire field of Egyptology so that's not a point in your favor.

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: Exactly! So stop mixing them. Deal with the SCIENCE not the faith. Attempt to disprove the science (if you can) and leave the faith out of it.

Still disgusted.

SC

Still misdirecting. Still avoiding.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still misdirecting. Still avoiding.

SC: I'm right here. If you have something to say, then say it. Just keep the religion out of it.

Best wishes,

SC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what you refuse to get is that fact that no matter how you want to word it, it's still wrong. Dr. Richards is not currently claiming anything like what you'd have others believe. So evidently he's learned alot that you haven't.

SC: I didn't "word it" - the Telegraph article did. Comprende?

CMA: And he has colleagues who don't agree with him. He also doesn't speak for the entire field of Egyptology so that's not a point in your favor.

SC: Of course he has colleagues who disagree with him. And of course he doesn't speak for the entire field of Egyptology. I never said he did. I presented to you a paper detailing other archaeologists who agree with Hawass, ergo, they disagree with those colleagues who disagree with Hawass. This is MY POINT. If scientists cannot agree among themselves as to the reliabilty or otherwise of C14 dating, then who are we to insist or claim it is reliable? Papers can be presented for both sides of the argument, ergo, we cannot trust C14 dates. They might be right but we cannot trust that they are right because - well, because they might actually be wrong.

Best wishes,

SC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't "word it" - the Telegraph article did.

And you presented it as if it were relevant to what he believes. It isn't, as that's not what he believes. Verstehen?

If scientists cannot agree among themselves as to the reliabilty or otherwise of C14 dating, then who are we to insist or claim it is reliable?

Since the majority apparently do agree amongst themselves, who are you to claim it's unreliable? From what I see, you're a nobody.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

And you presented it as if it were relevant to what he believes. It isn't, as that's not what he believes. Verstehen?

SC: The article tilte says it all. Go back and read it.

CMA: Since the majority apparently do agree amongst themselves, who are you to claim it's unreliable? From what I see, you're a nobody.

SC: Unfortunately, truth - scientific or otherwise - is not subject to democracy. As history shows, the field of science is a graveyard of theories that were once held to be the truth by the majority until the minority eventually prevailed to overturn that 'truth'.

Science by majority is not science.

Best wishes,

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2nd edit: Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy discussing this with you because at least you bother to find references instead of passing off your story par ordre de Mufti.

I agree. Kantzveldt is definitely a good read. I always check out what he's saying! :tsu:

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article title says it all. Go back and read it.

I've read it. And at this point it would appear that whatever questions Dr. Richards had in 2001 he found the answers for by 2009. Doesn't help your argument in the slightest.

As history shows, the field of science is a graveyard of theories that were once held to be the truth by the majority until the minority eventually prevailed to overturn that 'truth'.

And yet, the use of radiocarbon dating in archaeology has not been overturned so your objections are a moot point. Using a bit of your own argument, if we should throw out radiocarbon dating because of a few unfounded objections then we also might as well throw out everything that has been discovered by science because people of the Flat Earth Society don't believe the earth is a globe nor do Young Earth Creationists believe the earth is more than 6000 years old. :rolleyes:

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CMA: And yet, the use of radiocarbon dating in archaeology has not been overturned ...

SC: It doesn't have to be overturned for a considerable body of scientists to distrust it and they distrust it for good reason - it often presents contradictory results; results that contradict dating by other methods. It doesn't have to be overturned for most of archaeology to relegate the C14 date to a footnote.

Science by majority is not science - even if that majority has not (yet) been overturned. It might never be overturned but one would then hope that we can eventually reach a position where the reservations and doubt that many of these scintists hold can be overcome. Until such time - and regardless of your pro-C14 dating bias - there will always be doubt.......

Best wishes,

SC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't have to be overturned for a considerable body of scientists to distrust it and they distrust it for good reason...

It doesn't have to be overturned for most of archaeology to relegate the C14 date to a footnote.

And your evidence for either of the bold portions above would be what? And no, a few people voicing questions do not constitute "a considerable body" nor "most of archaeology".

Science by majority is not science - even if that majority has not (yet) been overturned.

And that's just it, it hasn't been overturned regardless of your objections. Deal with it.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that's just it, it hasn't been overturned regardless of your objections. Deal with it.

SC: Hasn't been overturned yet. 'Yet' being the operative word here. In real science 'yet' shouldn't even come into the equation. 'Yet' is precisely why there's concern about this science. A solid science would never find itself in such a predicament of perhaps one day being overturned. Not that I'd ever expect you to consider that since you are quite happy just to run with the majority as if majority somehow implies correctness of a theory. Oh boy!

You are, of course, perfectly entitled to take that stance - just don't expect me to share it. You present C14 dating evidence on this board as if it is inviolate, as if it is beyond reproach. If that is what you truly think then I have to say that you are seriously deluding yourself. But then - it's your mind, your delusion.

Best wishes,

SC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A solid science would never find itself in such a predicament of perhaps one day being overturned.

No, science is about finding the answers NOT having all the answers from the start which is what you are basically saying.

You present C14 dating evidence on this board as if it is inviolate, as if it is beyond reproach.

I've never said it's inviolate. It is, however, way more accurate than you'd like to believe. And it's rather noteworthy IMO that you didn't/couldn't provide any evidence that "a considerable body" or "most of archaeology" considered radiocarbon dating to be in error. Overstepped yourself, didn't you?

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

No, science is about finding the answers NOT having all the answers from the start which is what you are basically saying.

SC: No. Wrong once again. Yes,, science is about finding answers. But it is about finding answers using tools that we can fully trust to consistently produce reliable results. C14 isn't such a tool.

CMA: I've never said it's inviolate.

SC: Oh, so you agree that it is?

CMA: It is, however, way more accurate than you'd like to believe.

SC: What I believe is immaterial. Prove its accuracy.

CMA: And it's rather noteworthy IMO that you didn't/couldn't provide any evidence that "a considerable body" or "most of archaeology" considered radiocarbon dating to be in error. Overstepped yourself, didn't you?

SC: Oh so now it's about how BIG a majority you have? Do you think a bigger majority will solve the problem for you? If you think that then you;'re even more delusional than I first thought. What you don't seem able to appreciate is that it only requires ONE person to write a paper presenting valid scientific concerns about the technique to call the whole science into question. Yes, of course the majority can still rule the roost by sheer volume of numbers but that ONE individual who raised the concern might actually be right in those concerns and the majority might be wrong. Science is either right or it's wrong. And it only needs ONE person to raise legitimate concerns. As I keep saying to you - majority doesn't mean something is correct. I gave you a paper in an earlier post written by ONE person (referencing many others). Go have a look at their legitimate concerns about C14 dating. I can post more papers from others if you like but, like I said, it only takes ONE.

Best wishes,

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh so now it's about how BIG a majority you have?

No, it's about you saying something that is patently untrue and not being able to support it. In other words, a lie. But then, I pretty much expected that from you.

But it is about finding answers using tools that we can fully trust to consistently produce reliable results. C14 isn't such a tool.

And you're wrong again, as it's about using the best tools available and it's not been shown that radiocarbon dating isn't the best tool available. Even Dr. Richards from your earlier link has been part of that endeavor.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

No, it's about you saying something that is patently untrue and not being able to support it. In other words, a lie. But then, I pretty much expected that from you.

SC: No, no, no, Cormy old chap. I asked a question - is it about how BIG a majority you have? I don't see how that can be construed as a lie by any manner or means. You are such a drama queen, aren't you!

CMA: And you're wrong again, as it's about using the best tools available and it's not been shown that radiocarbon dating isn't the best tool available. Even Dr. Richards from your earlier link has been part of that endeavor.

SC: Except Dr Hawass and a number of others I have presented to you (and there are countless more no doubt we are unaware of) completely disagree that it's a reliable tool. Therein lies your problem and the problem for C14 as a dating technique - there are numerous (no I don't have the exact number before you ask) scientists who have deep reservations about its use. And no matter your protestations about how reliable a tool YOU think it is, you simply cannot change that simple fact.

Best wishes,

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...is it about how BIG a majority you have

I never said it had to be a majority. You however made specific claims ("a considerable body" and "most of archaeology") which you cannot substantiate and are now taking exception to the fact that you were caught with your pants down. Figuratively speaking, of course. You also went for an article making a claim, which included remarks by Dr. Richards, that's 10+ years old and doesn't remotely support his current position. So that only leaves two choices IMO. Your either an incompetent researcher or you were purposefully lying. Your choice, but neither one is a good position to be in.

...there are numerous (no I don't have the exact number before you ask) scientists who have deep reservations about its use.

None of which constitutes the two bold assessments you made above. And as mentioned previously Hawass has been known to NOT understand what radiocarbon dating can and can't tell us about age; reference the 2 million year old footprint mentioned in a previous post. His knowledgebase isn't exactly on firm ground in this regard. That you wish to ignore this is beside the point.

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.