Re: Carbon-14 fallacy in dating
- From: Stanley Friesen <sarima@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 18:24:53 -0800
John Harshman <jharshman.diespamdie@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
By the way, the radiogenic isotopes we see are in just the combinations
and quantities to be expected from an earth that's billions of years
old. We see isotopes with long half-lives, and isotopes that are recent
decay products of those with long half-lives. But we don't see any
isotopes that have short half-lives unless there is a known mechanism
for producing them. Ask yourself this: why, out of all the elements in
the periodic table, is Technetium the only one lighter than Uranium that
is not found in the earth's crust?
I bet I can get it in one guess.
I suppose I actually could go look it up in my CRC just to check :-)
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
.
- References:
- Carbon-14 fallacy in dating
- From: Craig A. Feinstein
- Re: Carbon-14 fallacy in dating
- From: Lee Jay
- Re: Carbon-14 fallacy in dating
- From: Craig A. Feinstein
- Re: Carbon-14 fallacy in dating
- From: eyelessgame
- Re: Carbon-14 fallacy in dating
- From: Craig A. Feinstein
- Re: Carbon-14 fallacy in dating
- From: John Harshman
- Carbon-14 fallacy in dating
- Prev by Date: Re: Wedge leakers revealed
- Next by Date: Michael Ruse Interview
- Previous by thread: Re: Carbon-14 fallacy in dating
- Next by thread: Re: Carbon-14 fallacy in dating
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|