RE: [asa] Plot of radiometric dates

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: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of gordon brown
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 10:52 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
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 majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe
asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Oct 30 21:57:22 2008