Re: Some Comments on Radiometric dating.

From: allenroy (allenroy@peoplepc.com)
Date: Wed Jan 22 2003 - 16:50:11 EST

  • Next message: sheila-mcginty@geotec.net: "Re: I didn't think Adam had the capacity for error until Eve was created..."

    This must have been another one that I failed to get because my email
    box got maxed out a few times. I'll check the archives.

    Allen

    Glenn Morton wrote:

    >And Allen, in your reply, why did you leave out my criticism. I had asked
    >why it is that young-earth cretionists always present things as if no one
    >had ever answered the objections. I then pointed you to some sites on the
    >web where these objections and criticisms of radioactive dating could be
    >found. I thought my response was substantive but you chose to ignore it.
    >
    >glenn
    >
    >see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
    >for lots of creation/evolution information
    >anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
    >personal stories of struggle
    >
    >
    >
    > 

    -- 
"I have been shown that, without Bible history, geology can prove nothing. Relics found in the earth do give evidence of a state of things differing in many respects from the present. But the time of their existence, and how long a period these things have been in the earth, are only to be understood by Bible history. It may be innocent to conjecture beyond Bible history, if our suppositions do not contradict the facts found in the sacred Scriptures. But when men leave the word of God in regard to the history of creation, and seek to account for God's creative works upon natural principles, they are upon a boundless ocean of uncertainty. Just how God accomplished the work of creation in six literal days, he has never revealed to mortals. His creative works are just as incomprehensible as his existence."  Ellen Gould Harmon White,  1864

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jan 22 2003 - 16:49:28 EST