Sun Aug 25 19:19:48 1996

From owner-tc-list  Sun Aug 25 19:19:48 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id TAA15994; Sun, 25 Aug 1996 19:18:29 -0400
From: DrJDPrice@aol.com
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 19:14:56 -0400
Message-ID: <960825191455_509650713@emout19.mail.aol.com>
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Carbon dating
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1193

In a message dated 96-08-25 18:26:05 EDT, Dave Washburn wrote:

<< 
 I believe his point was that the generation and uptake of C-14 in 
 relation to other carbon isotopes is affected by these factors (as 
 opposed to its decay rate, which you correctly point out is a 
 constant nuclear process), and hence we can't really assume that 
 quantities of C-12, C-13 and C-14 will have started out equal.  And 
 without that equality factor, C-14 dating is on even less certain 
 footing than we thought it was.
 
 I'm not enough of a molecular scientist to say whether I agree with 
 this assessment, I just wanted to point out that this is what I 
 understood him to be saying.  >>

I have read a couple of research reports that compare C-14 dates with
tree-ring dates for bristle-cone pine trees. The evidence supports the 
fact that the level of C-14 in the atmosphere fluctuates over time,
and that C-14 levels were significantly lower in remote antiquity.

James D. Price
==================================================
James D. Price, Ph.D.
Prof. of Hebrew and OT
Temple Baptist Seminary
Chattanooga, TN 37404
e-mail drjdprice@aol.com
==================================================

Back