Range of radiocarbon dating gets a boost Adult dating and swinging
"Fancy statistical treatments" that didn't even resolve all of the discrepancies?
That doesn't seem like a sound scientific process, does it?
So even though it is less reliable and has some serious problems, scientists ignore that and still use it.
This book was written on the basis of the calibration that intcal has been developing for over 20 years, a process that has unfolded in the stages listed above. In an article titled "Radiocarbon Daters Tune Up Their Time Machine," magazine explained: "[T]hanks to new and more accurate data from foraminifers, corals, and other sources - plus some fancy statistical treatments that help predict which way data gaps bend the curve - the intcal group has been able to resolve most of the discrepancies.
And what was it that finally got the scientists to agree on their uncertain calibration curve? The problem with all these theories and conclusions is that they hark back to the scientists' blind belief in the false theory of evolution.
That is about the only thing the scientists agree on, yet it causes much confusion and chaos.
C.," writes archeologist and professor Martha Joukowsky in "Since the dendrochronological sequence extends back only as far as about 5500 B.
Data has to be manipulated, skewed and given fancy treatment to make evolution fit the facts.