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 Profiles,'' Unpublished Manuscript, 28 July 1980.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