Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 UW 5/3/83; site uw-june
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!tektronix!uw-beaver!uw-june!gordon
From: gordon@uw-june (Gordon Davisson)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 32)
Message-ID: <62@uw-june>
Date: Mon, 15-Jul-85 19:55:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: uw-june.62
Posted: Mon Jul 15 19:55:57 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 18-Jul-85 06:40:00 EDT
References: <386@iham1.UUCP>
Organization: U of Washington Computer Science
Lines: 49

>[Ron Kukuk and THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE]
>
>    B.  TECHNIQUES THAT ARGUE FOR AN OLD EARTH ARE EITHER ILLOGICAL OR
>        ARE BASED ON UNREASONABLE ASSUMPTIONS.
>
>       60.  Radiocarbon dating, which has been  accurately  calibrated
>            by counting the rings of living trees that are up to 3,500
>            years old, is unable to extend this accuracy to date  more
>            ancient  organic  remains.  A few people have claimed that
>            ancient wood exists which will permit this calibration  to
>            be  extended  even  further back in time, but these people
>            have not let outside scientists examine their data.

This is a serious charge, and if true, is very disturbing.  Can anyone
offer substantiation?

>                                                                On the
>            other   hand,  measurements  made  at  hundreds  of  sites
>            worldwide  [a,b]  indicate  that  the   concentration   of
>            radiocarbon  in  the atmosphere rose quite rapidly at some
>            time prior to 3,500  years  ago.

I seem to remember it as not all that rapid, but go on...

>                                              If  this  happened,  the
>            maximum  possible  radiocarbon  age  obtainable  with  the
>            standard techniques  (approximately  50,000  years)  could
>            easily correspond to a TRUE age of 5,000 years.

Wrong!  If there used to be more C14 in the atmosphere than there is now,
it would make radiocarbon dates come out too *young*, not too old.  At
least try to get the direction of the error right!

>
>            a)  Robert  H.  Brown,  ''Can   We   Believe   Radiocarbon
>                Dates?'', CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY, Vol.12,
>                No.1, June 1975, pp. 66-68.
>            b)  Robert H. Brown, ''Regression  Analysis  of  C-14  Age
>                Profiles,'' Unpublished Manuscript, 28 July 1980.

Is this the same Bob Brown that used to be on the net?  The one who did
the bogus analysis of the probability of abiogenesis, then, when its
bogosity was pointed out, said essentially "Oh, I knew it was meaningless,
but I thought I'd do it anyway."

--
Human:    Gordon Davisson
ARPA:     gordon@uw-june.ARPA
UUCP:     {ihnp4,decvax,tektronix}!uw-beaver!uw-june!gordon