In regards to 'this canard' let me tell this story. I am sure you could
tell of others, too, if you would admit it. In 1973, Richard Leakey found
'1470 man' skull fragments that indicated he was 220 million years old
based on the potassium-argon method of radiometric dating. Since decades
of research by anthropoligists and paleontologists indicated man had only
been on the earth some 5 million years this had to be an error. Finally,
strata was located 6 miles from the find that indicated an age of 2.61
million years. That, then, was considered to be 'the best and most
acceptable estimate.' If the primary method of determining age which you
mention apparently doesn't work and apparently it didn't in this find,
educated guesses, including the circular reasoning process, are fell back
on. Not so amazingly it coincides with conclusions those that provide
funding and the National Geographic positions. Whenever I read something
like this, I try to follow the advice of DEEP THROAT when talking with
Woodward about Watergate. "...follow the money trail..."
Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
and do not rely on your own insight.. Pr. 3:5
Ron Chitwood
chitw@flash.net
----------
> From: Glenn Morton <grmorton@waymark.net>
> To: Ron Chitwood <chitw@flash.net>; Evolution group
<evolution@udomo2.calvin.edu>
> Subject: Re: Geology
> Date: Friday, April 24, 1998 4:38 PM
>
> At 09:44 AM 4/24/98 -0500, Ron Chitwood wrote:
> >>>>Glen Morton said 'Geology is not an "opinion". It is a field of study
> >with well
> >> established methods of study.'<<<
> >
> >It is in some areas. When a Geologist dates his strata by the fossils
> >found therein while a Paleontologist dates his fossils by the strata
> >they're found in that is known as circuitous reasoning, most definitely
> >expressing an opinion.
>
> Actually Ron, there are several means of escaping this oft claimed
> circularity. This canard never mentions the first means of age dating
rocks.
> It is superposition. The rock layer on top is younger IF it is in a
> relatively horizontal relationship to the rock layer below.
>
> -------------------------
> rock layer a fossil a
> -------------------------
> rock layer b fossil b
> -------------------------
> rock layer c fossil c
> -------------------------
>
> Since sediment only comes from above, the ages are Rock layer c is older
> than b which is older than a. Can't tell yet how much older but we do
know
> that there is an age relationship. Now if the fossils go in this order
as
> well as the lithology, one can then say that fossil c is older than
fossil b
> which is older than fossil a. The circularity is broken by the fact that
the
> order of the strata determines relative age, not the fossil. Then of
course
> radioactive dating is also quite effective at escaping the circularity,
and
> helps determine HOW much age difference there is between the strata.
>
> glenn
>
> Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
>
> and
>
> Foundation, Fall and Flood
> http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm
>