Re: you bickerers about pyramids, your Bible theories disgusts God

frank murray (fmurray@pobox,com)
Tue, 07 Jan 1997 22:19:16 GMT

On Tue, 07 Jan 1997 15:45:24 -0500, Doug Bailey
<> wrote:

>You bring up a very good point. The carbon-dating was performed by the
>Radiocarbon Laboratory of Southern Methodist University and also by
>laboratories in Zurich. It is my understanding that the samples were
>carefully selected based the nature of organic material contained in the
>different mortar samples. The frequency distribution of organic
>material was skewed towards the more recent ages (that is the 29th
>millenium BC). This makes sense given that their would be a
>predominance of organic material from more recent periods in relation to
>when the mortar was actually mixed and laid in place. However the
>preponderance of what is dated as 29th mil BC material and the complete
>absence of any material later than that establishes an extremely
>reliable line of demarcation in time for when the mortar was used.
>Given the limitations of carbon-dating and the relative paucity of the
>samples, the researchers stated that there was a margin of error large
>enough to reasonably believe the mortar could have been used as late as
>the 26th millenium BC.
>If we did use mortar now there is a possibility (though very rare due to
>organic material decay and sedimentation) that 1000 year old organic
>material would find its way into our mortar. However, if would be very
>rare and would be overshadowed by the large amount of fairly young
>organic material from the surrounding environment.

excellent explanation!! leads to the next it known
where the materials for the mortar were obtained??...and were they
obtained from a site or sites where stratification of the organic
materials by age might be expected??..if so, might not the carbon
dating be taken more as an indication of the level from which the
materials were obtained, rather than of the date at which the mortar
was laid??...