Joined: June 2007
Because I can't resist:
|About Bender (now at Princeton). He seems like a fine scientist. Note that he's not published any rebuttal of Bada since 1974. So if his 1974 critique was so great, why hasn't he picked up on it? He provides the answer in his final paragraph: |
|Their findings, and the fact that reasonable ages and temperatures are sometimes obtained, indicates that the method has potential. It clearly faces many basic problems, however, and in my opinion no palaeoclinatic or geochronological inferences should be drawn from racemisation data until the basic geochemistry is thoroughly understood and the bases or the method firmly established.|
Since then, of course, the geochemistry has advanced considerably. Bender, as a major geochemist, has apparently not seen fit to attack the dating method since 1974. Which suggests that quoting that 1974 paper (indirectly, via Brown) as support of anything today is not really going to solve anything.
Are you saying he's some sort of a coward or co-conspirator? Or perhaps a "retard"? Or, maybe, you know, "scum"?
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB