The predictions of Walt Brown

quote:

---

Prediction 32. As far as I understand, Radiocarbon dating cannot be used on material older than about 45,000 years. 70,000 years is outside the range of the C14 method due to its relatively short half-life.

---

--Not necessarily, you can measure much further back than 45k and even further than 70k. However, the issue is that with increasing age the method becomes increasingly inaccurate as an inherent protential. With age, the sample is more prone to contamination and as the total quantity of parent isotope diminishes it becomes increasingly more probable that contamination has taken place. Of course that is only half of the nutshell explanation.

I provided a pretty good potentially falsifiable argument which tested the validity (by consideration of relative plausibility between competing "young earth" and uniformitarian hypotheses) of a catastrophic allochthonous vs. an in situ growth model for the Eocene fossil forests in the specimen ridge/lamar river formation of Yellowstone. Unfortunately I cannot find the thread, I believe it has been deleted from evcforum archives. But I do think I have copies of my discussions with Dr. Richard Yuretich and William Fritz (Geologists who have performed several studies on the lithology and biogeography (phytological) of the formation) which espoused an identical critique of the mainstream hypothesis--or at least the framework thereof. I doubt that it would be applicable to Brown's theory, but anyways..

Thanks RAZD, I tried looking it up and found out that I don't have the needed software, oh well