Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utastro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!bill
From: bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: net.flame.religion
Message-ID: <1058@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 3-Mar-85 21:21:13 EST
Article-I.D.: utastro.1058
Posted: Sun Mar  3 21:21:13 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 7-Mar-85 05:27:02 EST
References: <1196@aecom.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 48

>	I have a couple of questions... How valid is carbon dating? I beleive
>it is based on the ASSumption that the percentage of carbon that is radioactive
>to carbon that isn't. I won't swear by it. Remember when someone claimed to
>have found Noah's ark? It was carbon dated to be 4,500 years old. It was later
>proven to be a midievel monastary. 

I think you may have your facts mixed up.  There was an alleged piece of
Noah's ark found in 1953 by Arkeologist Fernand Navarra.  It was dated
by suspect means at 5000 years old.  *Later* it was subjected to radiocarbon
dating and found to have originated about the eighth century A.D.  The
circumstances of its discovery are suspicious, and Navarra's climbing
companions have accused him of planting the specimen.  My source for this 
information is Robert A. Moore, "Arkeology: A New Science in Support of
Creation?", in *Creation/Evolution* VI, pp. 6-15.  According to Moore,
John D. Morris (a Creationist) is highly suspicious of the authenticity
of the sample, and has published these suspicions on p. 133 of his book
"Adventure on Ararat".  I would call this a victory for radiocarbon dating,
not a defeat.

Perhaps you have a different example in mind.  If so, *PLEASE SUPPLY
REFERENCES.  A MERE CLAIM WITHOUT SOME WAY FOR THE REST OF US TO
LOOK IT UP IS USELESS, AS WELL AS UNCONVINCING.*

>Do you know that Plutonium dating, (a 
>meathod not based on a similar assumption) proved that a batch of iron ore 
>(which can only be formed by the heat of formation of a planet - or it's 
>equivalent) was no more than 10,000 years old.

Iron ore can only be formed by the heat of formation of a planet? Where
did you get that idea?

I have never heard of "Plutonium Dating".  The half-life of plutonium is
so short that no natural plutonium exists on Earth any more.  For
a plutonium dating technique to work, there would have to be residual
plutonium left to measure in the sample.  Perhaps you mean Uranium/Lead
dating.  If so, you should be informed that it is not valid for ages anywhere
near as short as 10,000 years.  1-10 billion years is more the right 
ballpark.  Anyone who tried to use it for an age as short as 10,000
years would have to be considered incompetent.

-- 
"Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from
	religious conviction."  -- Blaise Pascal

	Bill Jefferys  8-%
	Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712   (USnail)
	{allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill	(uucp)
	bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA		(ARPANET)