Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihu1m.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!ihu1m!jho From: jho@ihu1m.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 32) Message-ID: <517@ihu1m.UUCP> Date: Wed, 17-Jul-85 09:15:15 EDT Article-I.D.: ihu1m.517 Posted: Wed Jul 17 09:15:15 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 18-Jul-85 08:13:44 EDT References: <386@iham1.UUCP> <62@uw-june> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 29 > > 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? The creationist are trying to confuse the issues. The half life of carbon 14 is few thousand years, therefore, it is not useful for dating objects on a prehistorical scale. Evolution time scales are order of magnitude larger. I don't see the point of bringing carbon dating into the discussion unless you are trying to confuse the uninformed. Returning to the point of the accuracy of the technique. The rate of decay of radioactive isotopes does not vary with time. The problem is the rate of formation of the isotope. Carbon 14 is formed constantly in the atmosphere by cosmic ray bombardment of nitrogen (I think). We cannot assume that the bombarment has been constant throughout the ages. (Radioactive decay is an intrinsic property of a single atom, whereas cosmic rays intensity depends on a collection of many sources that could be changing with time.) -- Yosi Hoshen, AT&T Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois, Mail: ihnp4!ihu1m!jho