RE: [asa] Plot of radiometric dates

It sounds like there may have been a debate going on. Ross doesn't hold to a
global flood, but rather universal flood, that flooded the area occupied by
all humans, that he claims was limited to the Mesopotamian area.
=========================================

> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Jon Tandy
> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 8:57 PM
> To: 'gordon brown'; asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: 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.
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.5/1755 - Release Date:
> 10/29/2008 5:27 PM
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Oct 31 00:23:00 2008