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)