>From: Susan Brassfield <Susan-Brassfield@ou.edu>
>> Allen:
>> >The same applies to radiometric dating. You must first assume that a
>> >rock is old enough to be
>> >measured by whatever means of measurement you expect will get the
>correct
>> >results. Then you do
>> >your measurements. Then you compute the resulting age. BUT, that age
>> >does not and cannot prove
>> >that the rock is old, nor that it is even that age, BECAUSE it is FIRST
>> >ASSUMED that the rock is old
>> >enough to be measured as that old! One of the first rules of logic is
>> >that you cannot prove what you >have assumed.
>>
>> IF this were the case, then measuring various rocks by various methods
>> would yield random results.
>
>Maybe, maybe not. But random results is besides the point. Even if they
>were all in absolute agreement they would not and could not be used to prove
>that the rocks were old. You have to first agree with the assumption that
>the rock is old and then you can accept the ages as valid.
no. You first agree that isotopes decay at a steady rate, all agree what
that rate is, and then pick up any rock whether it's old or not and see how
much of a certain isotope is left in it.
you don't need to know anything at all about any particular rock to get a
date for it.
>But if you do
>not agree with the assumption that the rock is old, then 100% agreement of
>dates would not be indicative of an old age but rather of the peculiarities
>of the chemical mixtures of the rocks. It all comes down to what you assume
>as correct first, then comes the interpretation of the data acquired.
>> The results would almost never agree because
>> the assumptions are incorrect. They do agree.
>
>In his latest book on radiometric dating (The Mythology of Radiometric
>Dating, 1999), Woodmorappe shows that two random number lists will have
>agreement (with the same kind of accuracy allowed for agreement between
>radiometric dates) with in the first 20 to 30 pairs of numbers. Thus one
>can expect a lot of agreement just between two random number lists.
>Agreement between 3 random number lists occurs within the first 100 to 200
>numbers. Agreement is not impossible even for purely random number lists.
Woodmorappe is not a reliable source. He has a HUGE ax to grind. Do you
have something else?
>He also points out that much "agreement" is so much hocus pocus.
>
>> Isotopes decay at a regular rate.
>
>This is not the issue.
yes it is. YOu don't have to make any assumptions about the rocks at all to
date them.
>> Nostradamus has a similar track record. So what?
>>
>Nostradamus was a foolish rambler writing nonsensical lines of French
>"poetry." Read Nostradamus, then read Daniel -- there is no comparison.
>Nostradamus is a fools prophet.
ah! a point of agreement! Anyone sufficiently vague can predict the future.
There will be a big earthquake next year. It's going to rain in the next
six months. The end is near.
Susan
----------
For if there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing
of life as in hoping for another and in eluding the implacable grandeur of
this one.
--Albert Camus
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 02 2000 - 17:54:42 EST