Yeah I think the scientist just has a chip on his shoulder or the journalist wanted to sell a more interesting story. I think the real controversy boils down to this:
> But the geological record is like reading the CliffsNotes version of a book, and he was frustrated by an “unconformity” in the sediment layers where thousands of years were missing, like someone had ripped out those chapters.
It’s an island and they’re not the most reliable for dating sediment layers - they’re not exactly closed systems.
I haven’t read his book but I can totally see a case for skepticism over the precise dating. It’s a common trick/error to play fast and loose with carbon dating calibration standards and sample collection to get better numbers. It’s hard to get right in the best of times and the results have to be taken in context.
Comments
Yeah I think the scientist just has a chip on his shoulder or the journalist wanted to sell a more interesting story. I think the real controversy boils down to this:
> But the geological record is like reading the CliffsNotes version of a book, and he was frustrated by an “unconformity” in the sediment layers where thousands of years were missing, like someone had ripped out those chapters.
It’s an island and they’re not the most reliable for dating sediment layers - they’re not exactly closed systems.
I haven’t read his book but I can totally see a case for skepticism over the precise dating. It’s a common trick/error to play fast and loose with carbon dating calibration standards and sample collection to get better numbers. It’s hard to get right in the best of times and the results have to be taken in context.