Re: It's no joke

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. <>
Date: Mon Apr 11 2005 - 14:21:06 EDT

I just read a news item in /Science/, 307:1841 (25 March 2005), that
radiocarbon dating has been calibrated back to "12,400 cal yr B.P." using
tree rings, and to 26,000 through corals and forminifera. The original
studies are in /Radiocarbon/, 46 (2005). Since an earlier calibration
brought out the explanation in the /Journal of the Creation Research
Society/ that bristlecone pines sometimes (~1 in 3 years ?) produced
double rings, and Vernon insists that nothing can be carbon-dated older
than 58,000 yr B.P., are we to recognize that every tree produces three
annual rings annually? Or is it that recognizing an old earth makes
scientists either unable to count or to recognize growth rings? Note
that, on YEC/flood geology assumptions, tree rings must have been
produced since the Flood, not since creation.

I await the risible explanation, which contradicts the heading.
Received on Mon Apr 11 14:26:52 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Apr 11 2005 - 14:27:00 EDT