If you're going to be responding to a thread, why don't you make sure
you know who claimed what. I wasn't stating that the earth was only 2000 years
old, Sparky. I added that only because some other "enlightened" list-member
had stated that earlier. It's called "Flash-Back Humor." Obviously, it doesn't
work if you weren't there. (Do I need to start using foot-notes?) But, thanks
for the simple history lesson anyway.
As for there being a "certain order to the makeup of matter." Wow, thanks for
opening my eyes to the wonders of atoms/molecules! Gee, then someone as astute
& scholarly as you would also be "sure about" the fact that nature DOES affect
the decay of matter. Like, say, an ice age or a meteor slamming into earth,
DOES alter the rates of carbon breakdown. Not to mention the contaminants
that we have been pumping out for over 200 years, well before the first
experiment of carbon dating. So, try not to be so fucking tunnel-visioned in
your 21st century!
Justin
On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, ben A. of the 21st century wrote:
> the forces of nature havent changed. carbon dating is based on carbon
> being one of the building blocks of the universe. do you think the laws
> of physics can just change over time? there is a certain order to the
> makeup of matter, and that is one of the many things that we are sure
> about. also, according to people who were there, and liked to write stuff
> down, julius caesar was killed in 44 B.C. that's over 2000 years ago.
>
> ben A. of the 21st century
>
>
> <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. >
>
> ben A. of the 21st century
>
>
