Allen Roy wrote:
> From: george murphy <email@example.com>
> >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.
Radioactive dating isn't done in a vacuum. There is, as I showed,
nothing "circular" about that dating method itself. Nor are arguments based on
the totality of observations , qualitative and quantitative, "circular" in the
proper sense. To "assume... that the rock is old enough to be as old as the
dates" is simply the assumption that scientific dating methods give real ages -
i.e., rejection of the apparent age idea.
Sometimes real scientific approaches encounter anomalies that, at a
given point in history, can't be explained, and real scientists admit that. It
doesn't mean that they immediately dumpt 99.9% of phenomena which are understood
because of .1% that isn't - though that may be the case if the anomaly persists
& is connected with other unsolved problems. This approach contrasts with that
of YECs whose "method" is "the Bible says the earth is 6000 years old."
> > 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
No - it doesn't work if the audience is deft enough to see through
George L. Murphy
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 23 2001 - 07:14:44 EDT