Sun Aug 25 15:17:48 1996

From owner-tc-list  Sun Aug 25 15:17:48 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id PAA15323; Sun, 25 Aug 1996 15:16:50 -0400
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19960825184554.006871a0@omail.eee.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 14:10:59 -0700
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" 
Subject: Re: Carbon dating
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1026

On Sun, 25 Aug 1996, Jim Mendelson  wrote:

>Your absolutely right.  And one of the biggest problems with C-14 dating
>is that it is dated in a "perfect environment".  So no elements are allowed
>during the breakdown period.  Think there ever was even one day in the
>history of
>the world that there was no temperature change, no weather change or no
>chemical breakdown in the earth's atmosphere?  C-14 is nothing than a
>process to show that the earth and its elements are older than the Bible
>shows they are.

I'm not going to touch *that* with a ten-metre pole (some of us have
scientific training, after all).

But I will observe that "temperature change," "weather change," and
"chemical breakdown" have no effect on the results of C-14 dating,
which is a nuclear process dependent *only* on the radioactive
behavior of C-14.

In general, I accept the accuracy of radiocarbon dating. Even the
wildest adjustments don't change the values by more than about 20%.

Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com

Back