|
Dendrochronology is interesting for another reason, it shows the silliness of radiocarbon dating. Some core samples dated with radiocarbon have not had the expected amounts of C14, showing that the assumption radiocarbon dating is based on, that the atmospheric radiocarbon concentration has remained constant through thousands of years, was false. The really interesting thing to me is that when radiocarbon dates started to be questioned, many scientist thought the radiocarbon dates were accurate and the historical dates flawed. They take an assumption (atmospheric radiocarbon concentration has remained constant), build a method from that assumption (radiocarbon dating), then base theories on the results of the method. This they call science, and say that belief plays no part in it. "Interesting", to quote Mr. Spock.
|
