Uh, yes, it is an assumption. And, since you've already read my "fucking
tunnel vision" comment, I assume you know why it is.
You're getting this from an English major,
Justin
On Sat, 4 Dec 1999, grrr wrote:
> > 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.
>
>
