Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!petsd!pesnta!hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 32) Message-ID: <538@psivax.UUCP> Date: Fri, 5-Jul-85 18:37:34 EDT Article-I.D.: psivax.538 Posted: Fri Jul 5 18:37:34 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 9-Jul-85 05:48:33 EDT References: <386@iham1.UUCP> Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) Distribution: net Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA Lines: 61 Summary: In article <386@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: > > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > >II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND LIFE > WERE RECENTLY CREATED. > > 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. 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. 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. > Big deal! Radiocarbon is simply not used for age estiamtes on the geological time scale! 50,000 years is simply *nothing* compared to geological time. In fact, this is not even sufficient to take one back out of the Holocene epoch. Remains that young are not even really considered fossils. > 61. Radiohalos, tiny spheres of discoloration produced by the > radioactive decay of particles that are encased in various > crystals, are strong evidence that the earth's crust was > never in a molten state. Based upon the specific patterns > seen in many of these rocks, it appears that these rocks > came into existence almost instantaneously--in other > words, CREATION! [a,b] > > a) Robert V. Gentry, '''Spectacle' Array of Po**210 Halo > Radiocentres In Biotite: A Nuclear Geophysical > Enigma,'' NATURE, 13 December 1974, pp. 564-566. > b) Robert V. Gentry, ''Radiohalos In Radiochronological > and Cosmological Perspective,'' SCIENCE, 5 April 1974, > Vol. 184, pp. 62-66. > I may have to read these articles! However, unless the rocks studied had an estimated near to the estimated age of the Earth the results have little to say about the origin of the Earth, only about the particular, younger, rocks in which the pattern is found. Also, these are relatively old articles, what has been done with these results since then? Are the interpretations proposed still accepted. or have alternative interpretations been proposed? This is where the slow and sure method of science is so important, wait until a result has been confirmed and reconfirmed before really accepting it. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen