RE: [asa] Denver RATE Conference (Thousands...Not Billions)_Part 2

I notice on that page that the theoretical decay of C14 tapers off as a log
function to essentially flat at about 50,000 years, with assumptions of
uniform reservoir samples and decay rates. It therefore makes sense that,
if there is truly background noise in the measurement, anything older than
that age would be interpreted as 50-60,000 years old.

Also in the page http://www.c14dating.com/corr.html, there is a list of
sources of error. They forgot one.
8. Source: Excess carbon dilution from global flood. Effect on age
determination: -90%. Measures to minimize the error: None needed - since
earth isn't older than 6000 years, no dates can be older than this.

Jon Tandy

-----Original Message-----
From: PvM [mailto:pvm.pandas@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 10:31 AM
To: Jon Tandy
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Denver RATE Conference (Thousands...Not Billions)_Part 2

http://www.c14dating.com/agecalc.html

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Sep 25 12:25:41 2007