Not that I even want to indulge in this debate while I have essay coming due
left & right, but:
The funny thing about carbon dating has always been its assumption: That the
forces of nature present now have always been the same. It is basing itself
on present conditions to explain the past, which isn't (hasn't?) been exactly
uniform throught out it's "4+ billion" to "2000 years" (depending on who you
ask, I guess!) of existence.
> K well, unless you have the scientific prowess to completely disprove carbon
> dating, which is something rediculous like 97.9% correct then maybe you have
> yourself an arguement. However, considering the oldest Primate/human they
> have found to date has been dated past 40,000 years I think there might be
> some problems with your theory. Do me a favor, take a few Geology Courses
> and then tell me what ya think. Im not sayin youre wrong, well, yes I am,
> but regardless, seriously, don't you think the smartest people in the world
> would know a little bit more about the Halflife of Carbon molecules then say
> you or I? For Christs sake, we actually had to perform carbon dating in my
> Geology class, thus making it a bit more of a theory than a hypothesis.
> Dont believe everything that you read.
> Jonathan
>
