Re: Did Lucy have human-like feet?
Susan Brassfield (Susan-Brassfield@uoknor.edu)
Tue, 09 Jul 1996 10:03:35 -0600
In article <31DF49FD.5B08@fast.net>, "A. Pagano" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> The following is posted on behalf of David Buckna <email@example.com>:
> >|> Is it not much more reasonable to conclude that the K-Ar dating
> >|> method used to determine the age of the Laetoli strata is in
> >|> serious error,
> On 27 Jun 1996 firstname.lastname@example.org (Christopher C. Wood) wrote:
> >No. What evidence do you have that K-Ar dating method is in serious
> >error? Can you point to other efforts to assign an age to the strata
> >that suggests a different age? Otherwise, you are simply ignoring
> >evidence that disagrees with your preconceived bias.
> Radiometric dating methods assume:
> a) that no decay product was present initially, or that initial quantities
> can be accurately estimated
> b) that the decay system was closed through the years, and
> c) that the decay rate was constant over time
> What conditions could invalidate these assumptions?
(I assume I'm replying to Buckna rather than Tony.)
Why would scientists continue to use dating methods that produced
conflicting, random dates? Assuming *every* evolutionary scientist in the
world was interested in producing false data, wouldn't such random results
be an embarrassment? Wouldn't they look for something that got a nice,
consistent date that they could fool everyone with?
Doubt cannot injure or even perturb the truth.
The truth is a citadel about which the breezes of doubt play.