brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

Dave Wilson testaccount2002 at btopenworld.com
Sat Oct 5 16:25:08 EST 2002


Matthew Amsel wrote:
> John Knight wrote:
>>This makes four FALSE assumptions:
>>
>>1)  That Earth has been around "millions of years".  This CANNOT be proven,
>>scientifically or otherwise.
>>
> 
> nor can it be disproven. given that carbon dating gives us dates in the
> millions, it is far simpler to assume that this is the range of time
> rather than to assume that: 
> 	A) the rate of carbon 14 decay in the universe varies with time
> or	B) God purposely made the earth in such a way as to appear millions
> (closer to the billion range, 	   actually) of years old to a bunch of
> guys who wouldn't even appear for millenia
> gotta love occam's razor
> 

For anything beyond ~50,OOO years, carbon dating is pretty inaccurate, 
(and even within its usable timescale, it needs organic content, and 
really is best with calibration from dendrochronology for good accuracy) 
but radiometric dating using other elements (Potassium/Argon, 
Argon/Argon, Uranium series, etc) can be used for the longer geological 
timescales.
Particularly where the composition of samples and timescales is such 
that different radiometric methods can be used, a high degree of 
confidence can be placed in the results.
Dave W.




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list