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