Subject: Re: Darwin's repentance (was Re: Neandertals and science)
Date: 25 Jan 1999 06:38:08 GMT
From:  (Ken Smith)
Newsgroups: nz.soc.religion,aus.religion.christian

Ross Walker <> writes:

>And your trying to tell me that "real scientists" haven't fabricated evidence?
>Give me a break. And what about the so called "reliabily" of carbon dating?

It's perfectly reliable, for dating things up to about 50,000 years
old, which contain carbon which came from living things.
Of course, if the organism got carbonate for its shell from water with
dissolved limestone millions of years old, carbon 14 is of no help in
determining the age, but if it's part of a plant (or was part of a
plant) which got its carbon 14 from the air, the dating procedure is
quite reliable.

Try going to your nearest University library and reading some of the
recent issues of the journal "Radiocarbon".

>Ross

>PS: Sorry if I sound irritable, it's 5:30 am and I'm tired. And that's no lie.
>:)

Ken Smith
--
Dr Ken Smith <> | "God, we know you are in charge, but why
Department of Mathematics,         |  don't you make it slightly more obvious?"
The University of Queensland,      |        Archbishop Desmond Tutu, 1990
St Lucia, Qld. 4072.  Australia.   |   (address to students at at West Point)