Scientist refute carbon dating
That said, we do not feel under any obligation to give “equal time” to both sides.
In the end, we came up with the following formula: the mainstream position will be represented by 10 scientists; the skeptical position by five. He holds a Ph D (1958) in geology from Columbia University.
The other, non-literalist group of evangelicals accepted some kinds of evolutionary uniformitarian hypotheses and radioactive dating.
The Seventh-day Adventists and the American Scientific Affiliation were central forums in the controversy regarding radioactive dating during the first decade after the invention of the C-14 dating method.
Perhaps our liberal take on the ethics of inquiry has become unfashionable in this postmodern age.
To which we respond: So much the worse for intellectual fashion.
Climate change (or, as some insist on saying, global warming) is one of the most prominent scientific, political, and even — as many would claim — moral issues of our time.
The criteria we have set for this article are quite strict.
To boil all these scientists down to 15 names, we had to be extremely selective. We also hold that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.The importance of the topic of this article is undeniable.We continue to read about it every day in the newspapers, in an unceasing stream of books pouring from the presses, and not least of all, online.And also because the slow and painful advance towards truth is best served by the open and honest airing of disagreement.
For all of these reasons, we deplore all attempts to use political muscle to shut down academic debate.Hansen is one of the two or three people on this list most visible to the general public.