> 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.
um, i don't think it has to do with that assumption at all. i think it
has to do with the fact that carbon is one of those basic elements of
creation and, if you've taken your basic science classes, they wouldn't be
doing carbon testing on a large scale if it wasn't one of the most
accurate ways to date things.
and carbon has been around-in the same form- for a long time all over the
universe. the conditions in the past haven't changed the fact that carbon
is carbon.
natalie
she is something of an after dinner mint.
