From: Susan Brassfield <Susan-Brassfield@ou.edu>
> >However, one of the axioms (or presuppositions) for radiometric dating is
> >that the rocks are old enough to be dated. Thus one must first asume
that
> >the rocks are old before you can date them. Consequently, radiometric
dates
> >cannot provide evidence of the old age of the rocks because old age is
> >already assumed in the dating method. You cannot prove what you assume.
>
> Hmmmm . . . your memory seems to be "read only." I thought a couple of
> weeks ago you admitted that assumptions don't alter physics.
No, you are the one with no memory. I said that challenging radiometric
dating has nothing to do with physics. I have no problem with physics, I am
not trying to alter physics. We are talking about the suppositions upon
which radiometric dating is based.
1. The rocks must be as old as one is attempting to measure.
2. There has been no loss or gain of the measured isotopes since
crystalization.
3. All daugher isotope was gassed out prior to crystalization
(I quoted sources which showed that 2 and 3 are commonly violated and thus
violating the assuptions.)
> >All other methods of estimating the age of sedimentary rock are based on
> >Actualism -- the present is the key to the past. Sedimentary rocks are
> >classified according to the idea that things have gone on the same as
today
> >with the possible exception of occational minor catastrophic events.
>
> and you, of course, can cite hard evidence that things were different back
then
My evidence is witness evidence. Where is your witness evidence saying that
it was the same as today? Where is your hard evidence for the same? You
have none. Who is doing the most gussing?
> >To accept evolution over vast ages as the method which God used to
create,
> >the Christain must find more solid evidence than that found in
Evolutionism.
> >They must find it clearly stated in God's word, that genetic change over
> >vast ages is how God created. Is that what we find? Some may attempt to
> >make Genesis into mythology, or symbolic language, or sweet, cute tales
of
> >origins, but based on what? The religion of Evolutionism; based on the
> >assumption of old ages without real evidence?
>
> you, yourself said that it was ok to see some parts of the Bible as
> metaphor or poetry. Now it looks like you are contradicting yourself.
According common sense, the same as we use for reading any other written
communcation. No one would attempt to take the Declaration of Independence
and claim it is mytholocal or that its writers didn't mean what it says but
that it was symbolic or fictional. You take the Bible for what it says
using common sense. You can't pick and choose what you what is true or
poetic any more than one would do with the Declaration of Independence. But
then again, maybe you do.
> >What an Evolutionary Creationist is doing is trying to interpret the
Bible
> >within the religion of Evolutionism and all it's axioms. Why?
Evolutionsim
> >is based not on emperical evidence but upon philosophical assumptions.
>
> In yer dreams!
No, in your dreams. Emperical evidence does not mean Evolution.
Evolutionism is an interpretation of emperical evidence according to
philosophical assumptions. Creationism can take the same evidence and
intepret it within it's paradigm.
> >"kinds" (baramin) of plants and animals. Geology would be fasciniating
as
> >one peels back the evidence, event by event, of the Flood Catastrophe.
>
> there is no evidence at all that there was a global flood at any time in
> earth's history. Floods leave lots of evidence behind.
My, what an emphatic statement and with absolutly no evidence to back it up!
The entire geologic record is the evidence for the global catastrophe. It
all comes down to the paradigm within which you interpret the rocks. The
reason why most people think that the rocks cannot be catastrophically laid
is because of the current classification system which presupposes that the
depositional environments were not catastrophic, but common, ordinary
deposition. So, you get a self-fulfilled prophecy -- No catastrophic
evidence in the rocks. Bull!
Allen
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Mar 27 2000 - 20:25:42 EST