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!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!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: <86@uw-june>
Date: Mon, 22-Jul-85 04:35:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: uw-june.86
Posted: Mon Jul 22 04:35:10 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 25-Jul-85 04:49:06 EDT
References: <386@iham1.UUCP> <62@uw-june> <517@ihu1m.UUCP>
Organization: U of Washington Computer Science
Lines: 31

>> [discussion of the accuracy of C-14 dating]

>[Yosi Hoshen]
>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.

Not true.  If I remember correctly, current techniques allow carbon dating
to be used on objects as old as 500,000 years.  Although carbon dating is
not important in the case for an old earth, it is important to those who
claim that the earth is only 10,000 years old.  This is why I was inquiring
about tree-ring dating, since I was under the impression that it went back
further than 10,000 years.

>                                          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. 

Based on the rest of Kukuk's postings, you're probably right.  But go on...

>Returning to the point of the accuracy of the technique.  The rate of decay
>of radioactive isotopes does not vary with time.

So we think.  The creationists tend to claim otherwise, but they're very
thin on evidence.  See my other posting on the subject.

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