Fri Aug 30 16:05:10 1996

From owner-tc-list  Fri Aug 30 16:05:10 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id QAA20820; Fri, 30 Aug 1996 16:02:52 -0400
Message-Id: <322747F0.62BA@eee.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 12:58:40 -0700
From: Jim Mendelson 
Organization: Calvary Chapel of the Chino Valley
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Carbon dating (fwd)
References: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 2041

James R. Adair wrote:
> 
> This message ended up in my mailbox, but was intended for the list.
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 08:12:34 -0500 (CDT)
> From: Paul Farrar 
> To: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
> Subject: Re: your mail
> 
> > The most significant problem with C-14 dating is the
> > assumption that C-14 decays at a constant rate.
> >
> > It has been shown in a laboratory (I can't remember
> > the guys name off hand but I can look it up) that when
> > C-14 is placed across a potential difference ie. in an
> > electrical field, the rate of decay speeds up significantly
> >
> > This means that everytime an electrical storms passes
> > by the C-14 is decayed much more rapidly than usual.
> >
> > Therefore, the dates obtained always indicate older ages.
> >
> > cheers,
> > Andrew
> >
> 
> That is false.
> 
> The largest known variation for element transmutation is 0.18% for
> 7Be. C has no significant natural variation.
> 
> I've seen some accurate explanations, and a lot of complete nonsense
> on this thread. May I recommend a book, such as Sheridan Bowman,
> _Radiocarbon Dating_ from the UC/British Museum Interpreting the Past
> Series? Also check _Radiocarbon_ magazine, especially their calibration
> issues. (I believe the last one was vol. 35.)

James--I know that you believe or trust C14 test, and may JESUS CHRIST
bless you for that.  But make sure when you give references like you do
for these issues, tell us weather or not the books or magazines are bias
or not.  I am a creationist and I would never use National Geographic
for a reference, even though they use some good material.  They are 100%
evolution, so how can a Christian use them as a reference.  Science
magazine is another example.  I belong to a Creation board and 1000's of
scientist's around the globe don't use C14 because it is so inacurrate.
Put a scroll in a dark cold place, put another in the sun and wind and
rain.  2000 years later, which has dated more?  Take care,

Back