Subject: Re: Carbon dating (fwd)

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 09:33:23 -0400 (EDT)

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 <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
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.)

---

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 09:45:31 -0400 (EDT)

(Andrew S. Kulikovsky:)
> > by the C-14 is decayed much more rapidly than usual.
(Paul Farrar:)
> 7Be. C has no significant natural variation.

I agree with Paul Farrar here.  We have to distinguish variation in the 
rate of _deposit_ of C14 in the environment (due to volcanic activity, 
meteorites, etc.), which does occur, from variation in the rate of decay, 
which is a process internal to the Carbon atom.  It seems unlikely to me 
that one fundamental force of nature (the electromagnetic) would affect 
the workings of another fundamental force (the weak nuclear force, if I 
remember correctly, is what causes nuclear decay in radioactive 
substances), at least under normal circumstances (i.e., outside of a 
particle accelerator, where the various forces tend toward a single 
force, according to theory).

Jimmy Adair
Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
    and
Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------

---

From: Paul Farrar <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 08:40:23 -0500 (CDT)

Sorry, I used the reply function, and didn't check headers

---

From: Jim Mendelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 12:58:40 -0700

> 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,

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 15:41:35 -0700

>rain.  2000 years later, which has dated more?  Take care,

I find this post very disturbing. Please, folks, let's keep
theology off this list. As soon as that starts, our ability
to exchange information becomes badly damaged.

Jim Mendelson admits to being a creationist, and presumably thinks
those of us who are not to be less than perfect Christians. I admit
to believing in the law of conservation of mass-energy, and I freely
admit that I think those who believe otherwise are less than rational.
But I can exchange information with those people, as long as they
don't get obnoxious about it. The people on this list, be it
noted, come from all different denominations -- and normally don't
talk about it.

So please, let's *not* start in on theology. This list is devoted
to textual criticism. Let's keep the discussion on that topic.

Though I can't help one last comment. In this case, about
radiocarbon dating. Be it noted that even a creationist should
be able to accept C-14 dating, as long as the date is within the
last five thousand years or so. It's only *before* that that
problems come in.

After all, you must have some belief in science if you are using
a computer... and electric lights... and sterile bandages...
and automobiles... and telephones... and food grown with modern
farm machinery....

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 20:23:13 -0400 (EDT)

> rain.  2000 years later, which has dated more?  Take care,

Jim,

In the first place, this list is not the place to debate creation vs. 
evolution.  Second, if you will re-read the message you quoted, you will
note that I merely forwarded someone else's message (on that occasion,
although I did address the issue in a different post).  I think we have
probably addressed the C14 issue sufficiently, at least for the purposes
of the present list, since it is after all something of a tangent, so I
will leave it to the members of the list to come to their own conclusions
about radiocarbon dating on the basis of the various arguments that have
been put forward. 

Jimmy Adair