RE: [asa] RATE fraud (Was RATE's Radioactive Thourium Plot)

From: Jon Tandy <tandyland@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu May 24 2007 - 12:17:20 EDT

Steven Smith writes:
 

So would it be fair to summarize the RATE argument like this?
1) RATE acknowledges that rocks and minerals show several million or even
billion years worth of radioactive daughter products using today's decay
constants.
2) RATE acknowledges that "there is often close agreement reported from
several independent dating methods which all give an ancient age for a
particular rock formation."
3) The implied conclusion is that radioisotopic dating methods are valid and
actually measuring consistent isotope ratios that, using an assumption of
constant decay rates, generally give concordant ages of several million to
billion years.
 4 ) RATE proposes at least 2 episodes of extremely accelerated nuclear
decay in order to compress all of this acknowledged decay into their view of
a Biblically-required 6,000 years.
 5 ) RATE studies imply that the majority of rock samples have discordant
dates thus casting doubt on the validity of radioisotopic dating methods.
 
 
I think you could add at least another conclusion from what you have
written.
 
6) Even though different radioisotopic dating methods confirm concordant
ages, using the assumption of constant decay rates, the RATE project still
concludes that there must have been different decay rates of different
elements, because of what the Bible (seems to) say about the age of the
earth. And we can say (with a straight face) that this is science.
 
What they are doing obviously is proposing that the science behind dating
methods is all wet, because the Bible tells them differently. According to
them, the existing radioisotopic dating methods are not valid, but yet they
claim to use radioisotopic dating to "prove" a young earth by focusing only
on a small minority of anomalous samples. But what they haven't been able
to do is propose a positive scientific dating method that could actually be
used to accurately date any rock sample. If the existing methods are
flawed, what method does RATE propose to accurately date the rocks? Since
they begin with an assumption that the age of the rocks is determined by the
Bible, perhaps they ought to propose a Biblical method to date the rocks,
instead of just throwing rocks at the existing methods. Maybe there is some
numero-geometrical feature of the Biblical text that will help them out
here, so they don't have to rely on *flawed* scientific assumptions.
 
It seems that they don't really care about dating the rocks, because they
*know* the rocks are all only about 6000 years old, along with all the
fossils. Who cares if the rock or fossil ages are 4500.1 years (early
flood), 4500.5 years (middle flood), or 4500.8 years (late flood)? So
instead of engaging the sciences, they should admit what seems to be the
real goal -- kill the sciences of geology, paleontology, etc, because the
available methods are all flawed. If there is no objective method that can
be offered to help the sciences know the true ages of rocks and fossils, on
which the rest of these fields is based, why bother doing the science at
all?
 
 
Jon Tandy
 

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu May 24 12:17:28 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu May 24 2007 - 12:17:28 EDT