RE: [asa] Plot of radiometric dates

From: gordon brown <Gordon.Brown@Colorado.EDU>
Date: Thu Oct 30 2008 - 22:15:58 EDT

I think that Hugh Ross associated the shortening of human life spans in
the Genesis genealogies with the effects of a supernova that wasn't too
far away, but that is not very close to what you have described.

Gordon Brown (ASA member)

On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, Jon Tandy wrote:

> I am quite sure there was something on this, but I asked and my parents
> couldn't remember all the details. They said there was someone else with
> him at this conference in Philadelphia in about 1990, and it could have been
> the other person who suggested it (they couldn't remember the name). I do
> remember it, because the information my parents brought back was influential
> on me, and I held for many years afterward a view that embraced the evidence
> for the age of the universe and the earth (Hugh Ross clearly taught that),
> and simultaneously holding to a conventional view of a worldwide flood
> around 2500-3000 B.C.
> Anyway, my reason for asking the question now is just a passing curiosity
> about RTB's or Ross' views then and now, and also whether anyone else had
> heard this particular claim.
> Jon Tandy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [] On
> Behalf Of gordon brown
> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 10:52 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [asa] Plot of radiometric dates
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, Jon Tandy wrote:
>> Years ago, about 1990, my parents attended a seminar by Hugh Ross.
>> According to my recollection (which arguably could be incorrect) one
>> of the points that they came back with was a claim that if you plot
>> all the measured ages obtained from radiometric dating (or was it
>> specifically
>> Carbon-14 dating?) of various material and fossil samples, the
>> measurements go back to around 2500 B.C., then suddenly shoot
>> exponentially up into the millions of years. The implication was that
>> something dramatically happened (i.e. worldwide flood?) at about that
>> time which skewed the decay processes or our measurement of them, and
>> thus reliance on those dating methods is questionable before that time.
>> For those knowledgeable about RTB, is this something that was in the
>> past taught by RTB? If so, is it still taught? More generally, is
>> this a claim that anyone has run across, and what is its basis? I
>> could provide several answers based on my knowledge of the processes
>> involved, but I suspect the claim (if I'm remembering it anywhere
>> close to accurately) is pretty well bogus.
> This does not sound like Hugh Ross or RTB. In fact, it reminds me of YECs.
> I think that the main place where Ross's views on dates differ from the
> scientific consensus is in how far back in time our species goes, but he
> seems to have have gradually over the years moved his date further back.
> Note that I refer here only to his views on dates, not on method of
> creation.
> Gordon Brown (ASA member)
> To unsubscribe, send a message to with "unsubscribe
> asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> To unsubscribe, send a message to with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Oct 30 22:16:28 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Oct 30 2008 - 22:16:28 EDT