Posted by a7p on March 14, 1999 at 17:31:00 {MWfPLG5L29fHA}:
In Reply to: More Archaeology posted by Al; on March 14, 1999 at 05:59:34:
Al, you very familiar with various dating techniques and that is to be commended. but you neglected to mention that many scientists do not use very many of those methods. Many only use one. How many scientists ever actually use tree ring
dating in their dates. You might wnat to read the Spet/Oct 98 issue of Archealology magazine article "Reforming Academia" on page 27. Archeaology and archaeologists have not been thorough or diligent up to now. And the Magazine was quite
gentil and careful of how they presented the information. It might seem like an oversight or accident, but those of us well read and informed know better.
It should be known that not only do Egyptologists not use C14 and other methods
to confirm and deny dating but they actively avoid it. Avoiding the very methods you sight. Why would they do this? And why do they conceal it. I will leave the for you or other to answer. I have my ideas. I will tell you that there exists
solid evidence excavated in the Nile delta that seriously challenges the correctness of current pharaonic dating. but they would prefer to ignore such discrepancies.
I would like to see more use of multiple dating techniques applied to finds. IT might turn up some interesting tidbits.
And I have never heard of any Australopithecines being found with tools. And if they had, it is no proof that the tools belong to the entity disovered with the tools. You must "assume" to make that connection.
Science needs more science, actually. but I feel my post in diggin up the past was ignored. That dealt with what we can really be certain of. How certain is the knowledge we currently have. Can you assure me that it will not change 10 or 20 years from now when we gain more understanding of things. In my opinion, knowledge, just like JW knowledge, is only relative and temporary.
Bible prophecy is still a very persuasive factor for many including
myself. I have no shame in that. Your interest if science is good and appreciated by me but perhaps you have over-rated its reliability in the opinions of some like myself.
As I said in the other post, some can see a glass as half empty
and other see it half full. Settling these matters is not likely provable. I do not think people are irrational or gullible just because they are not persuaded by what has been dug up and offered by science.