From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Mon Apr 07 2003 - 17:27:57 EDT
I think almost everyone is aware than the number 666 or 616 in Rev 13.8 has significance and the identify of the creature is of interest. However it is very problematical . What I object to is your complex ramifications which are totally incomprehensible and convoluted. If yours is a correct reading of Rev 13.8 then you must have a Ph.d. in maths to be saved. To interpret Rev 13.18 the waY YOU DO IS TO DELIBERATELY MISINTERPRET hOLY sCRIPTURE.
My statement of the invincible ignorance of YEC s is based on their refusal to correct their errors, as for example Woodmarappe and Austin on radiometric age dating. See Carrigans email to assoc of Christian geologists copied below. Add to that all the occasions where YECs will not listen to criticism and continue to perpetrate their false arguments - eg. geological column, decay of magnetic field, shrinking sun, polystrate fossils, one can only come to one of two conclusions, either they do not know what they are talking about or like the wonderful Iraqi Minister of Information simply will not face facts. Hence invincible ignorance is a charitable assessment. If that is not the case then they are wilfully being dishonest.
Now when I am shown a YEC book which does not distort then I will begin to respect their arguments, but I said that in 1971 and 32 years later I am still waiting.
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: Charles Carrigan
To: acg-l@cc.dordt.edu
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: [ACG] Mt. Saint Helens rocks
All,
So that everyone can see for themselves, the full text of Austin's work on the St. Helens dacite is available at:
http://www.icr.org/research/sa/sa-r01.htm
A few comments to add to what Ken and Steven have already said:
1) Austin used the conventional K-Ar method. This method has been discredited for many years. The 40Ar/39Ar method replaced it many years ago, and is far superior for many reasons. Note that Austin published this work in 1996, well after the conventional K-Ar method was discredited.
2) Austin rightly recognizes that there is excess 40Ar in his samples, but makes no attempt to correct for this excess Ar in determining the ages.
3) Austin states in this paper that "The fundamental dating assumption ('no radiogenic argon was present when the rock formed') is questioned by these data." This is NOT the fundamental dating assumption. This point requires further clarification, but I don't have the time right now to go into further detail.
4) Young volcanic flows in the historical record have been dated accurately by the 40Ar/39Ar method. See Renne et al., 1997, 40Ar/39Ar Dating into the Historical Realm: Calibration Against Pliny the Younger, Science, 277, 1279-1280.
I have been meaning for some time to write a more extensive review of Austin's work on geochronology, including the material on the Grand Canyon that Bill mentioned. I have found ALL of his work on geochronology to be problematic, with incorrect assumptions, faulty methods, and illogical conclusions. Hopefully I'll be able to write that up in the near future, and I would be happy to share my conclusions with all of you. However, numerous people have already addressed different aspects of Austin's geochronology; there are lots of decent sites on the web (but lots of crummy ones too, unfortunately).
However, I found his abstracts recently published at GSA meetings to be quite reasonable and high quality. Unfortunately for him, none of them do what he would like them to do (debunk the geologic column).
All the Best,
Chuck
*********************************************************************************************
Charles W. Carrigan
Univ. of Michigan - Department of Geological Sciences
2534 C.C. Little Bldg.
425 E. University Ave.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1063
cwcarrig@umich.edu
fax: 734-763-4690
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~cwcarrig/
"The point of having an open mind, like an open mouth,
is to close it on something solid."
-G.K. Chesterton
----- Original Message -----
From: Vernon Jenkins
To: Michael Roberts
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 12:04 AM
Subject: Re: The power of ten
Michael,
On 14 Feb last, writing to Don Winterstein, you said:
"Sadly over the last couple of years, this listserve has attracted people with bizarre ideas which they think are directly revealed by God. Once anyone claims that we should all ignore it as that is the first step to a cult.
"We have sufficient revelation from Jesus and the Bible so don't need to add to it, neither do we need numerological proofs of the Bible.
The best thing we can do is to ignore such nonsense and I will do just that."
As a man of ' the cloth' you will of course be aware that Rev.13:18 contains the explicit imperative 'psephisato' (ie 'let him calculate'); the study of the number 666 must therefore be understood as an open and direct command from the Lord to all Christians. In my writings, I have attempted to obey that imperative and make others aware of the uniqueness of this number and of the important implications that derive from it. Your 'sufficient revelation from Jesus and the Bible' ignores this matter; indeed, suggests that you want none of it. But are you then not a Bible believer?
I observe in your most recent posting that you refer to the 'invincible ignorance' of the YEC. Apparently there are things many others 'don't know because they don't want to know'. For both Christian and scientist alike this is surely a travesty. To ignore facts simply because they are incompatible with one's view of reality is both dishonouring to the Lord and reduces the status of all 'reasoning associated with scientific thought' (DS Wilson, "Darwin's Cathedral").
Vernon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Apr 07 2003 - 17:35:13 EDT