Re: Response to Why YEC posting

From: Allen Roy (
Date: Thu Aug 23 2001 - 02:11:24 EDT

  • Next message: Allen Roy: "Re: Numbers an "historian"?"

    From: george murphy <>
    >From this emphatic statement one would get the impression that you were
    going to give a general proof that radioactive dating methods "MUST" assume
    the antiquity of the earth. In reality do nothing of the kind, but instead
    present one supposed anomaly. That is something quite different.

    Whether it is one or one thousand, the issue remains the same.

    > Whether or not radioactive dating always gives the correct answers,
    whether it is always consistent with other dating methods, whether its
    assumptions about constancy of decay rates or initial abundances, &c are
    correct is not the issue.


    >The question is, is the argument involved circular in the sense that one
    has to assume that the ages involved are much greater than those assumed by
    YECs in order to calculate the ages - whether those calculations agree with
    the real age of the system or not. The answer is "No."
    > You will probably want to deflect the argument to focus on your supposed
    anomaly, ignoring all the cases in which various dating methods consistently
    give ages much greater than those believed by YECs and the fact that no
    recognized scientific methods give ages of the earth on the age of 10^4
    years. But that has nothing to do with the logic of the argument.

    Sorry, you missed the point completely. It has nothing to do whether I (in
    my Creationary Catastrophist paradigm) agree with the computed dates or not.
    The point is that computed dates are accepted by Evolutionary geologists
    only when it is first assumed that the rock is old enough to be as old as
    the dates. The rejection of the computed dates for the Uinkaret Plateu lava
    was by Evolutionary geologists not Creationary Catastrophists (although we
    would concure). That rejection was based solely on the assumption that the
    rock could not be as old as the radiometric dates indicated. On the other
    hand, even the acceptance of computed dates for other rock systems by
    Evolutionary geologists is based solely on the fact that rock is assumed to
    be old first. This is the situation for the acceptance or rejection of ALL
    radiometric dates.

    This is nothing more than simple logic. If we know that a rock is young, no
    computed date which says otherwise has any meaning. If we know that a rock
    is old, no computed date which says otherwise has any meaning. The knowing
    comes first. The knowing does not come from computed dates.

    The circular logic comes, just as Curt says, when an accepted computed date
    is said to prove the age of the rock, or when a rejected computed date is
    said to disprove the age of a rock.

    > > The Tablet theory (the idea that literary structural evidence in Genesis
    > > parallels literary structures of writings from the same era (and before)
    > > Moses) is based on solid archaeological evidence. While such a whacked
    > > out delusion as the JEPD (or what-ever) theory was developed from an
    > > anthropological theory (that the concept of a Supreme God was the final
    > > religious stage evolving from polytheistic spiritism) that was disproven
    > > and discarded over three quarters of a century ago.
    > This last sentence is a perfect illustration of the orator's
    maxim, "Argument weak here - shout like hell!"
    Or, if the audience is deft

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 23 2001 - 02:21:34 EDT