One of the assumptions of all radiometric dating is that the rocks are old
enough to be measured by whichever of the radio-isotope pairs (or more) you
choose. Since you must first assume old rocks, the dates acquired by
measuring the radio-isotopes cannot be used to prove the rocks old. You can
use all the physics you want, but it still won't get around this fact of
logic: You can't prove what you assume. The assumption of old rocks must
still be taken by faith.
Roy:
> One of the assumptions of all radiometric dating is that the rocks are old
> enough to be measured by whichever of the radio-isotope pairs (or more)
you
> choose. Since you must first assume old rocks, the dates acquired by
> measuring the radio-isotopes cannot be used to prove the rocks old. You
can
> use all the physics you want, but it still won't get around this fact of
> logic: You can't prove what you assume. The assumption of old rocks must
> still be taken by faith.
Chris
This is silly. You have to assume that a distance has length before you can
measure its length, but the purpose of measuring it is to determine *what*
that distance is. Assuming that something is old is not the same as
measuring *how* old it is. Further, it is not, ultimately, an *assumption*
at all that rocks are old. If you wish to claim that we live in kind of
"virtual reality" which was created five minutes ago (or five *seconds*
ago), *please* do so, but don't confuse such baseless ideas with science.
Such a claim, or anything like it, is pure philosophy.
We *conclude* that rocks are old because that's what the *evidence* (i.e.,
the Earth itself, the planets, our knowledge of physics, geology,
geophysics, astronomy, biology, genetics, and so on) indicates. We use
radiometric dating as *one* method of measuring the age of rocks more
precisely than we could by merely inspecting them. Perhaps it is not as
precise as we'd like it to be -- few methods of measurement are -- but,
unless you propose to simply deny the physics that radiometric dating is
based on, and the fact that it agrees with other methods of measurement,
etc. -- and provide empirical *facts* to back up your claims, you are either
stuck with it or are simply effectively admitting that you are irrational
and that you have no business being on this list until you have a few years
of the study of the relevant sciences, instead of just blindly buying into
what demagogues like Duane Gish have to say. Go out and take a look at the
real, *physical*, world; it's a fascinating place.
Susan
> > the debate is mostly between a small segment of Christians who want
> Genesis
> > to be literally, scientifically true and the rest of the world. Physics
> > works or we wouldn't be able to have this debate over computers. Physics
> > says the earth (and those sedimentary rocks) are very old. That's a tad
> > more than an article of faith.
>
Roy
> The problem has zero, zip, nada to do with Physics. It has to do with
which
> assumptions you choose to start with.
Chris
Radiometric dating does *not* depend on the assumption that rocks are old.
It depends on the assumption that radioactive decay proceeds at certain
rates, and that there is no reason to think that those rates have changed
radically over time. It *does* have something to do with physics, because
otherwise it wouldn't be a measurement at all. It depends on quantitive
ratios of physical substances and how they change over time. That's
*physics*.
Roy
> > > The Creationary Catastrophism assumptions are based on interpretations
> of
> > >the eyewitness evidence
> > >given in the Bible.
Chris
There is no eyewitness evidence given in the bible. If you think there is,
prove it. Find *one* sentence that's eyewitness evidence and prove that the
author of it actually *saw* what is claimed.
Susan
> > There is also eye witness evidence that Spider Woman gave birth to the
> > world. There is also eyewitness evidence that the world was created by
> > Brahaman from a cosmic egg. Etc.
>
Roy
> It all comes down to which is true. The Bible is. All others are not.
Again, you are *totally* lacking in supporting *evidence* and violently
disregarding the evidence (both in the Bible and external to it) that the
Bible is full of bull-droppings, that much of it is simply lies or
hallucinations or dreams or wishful thinking.
Chris
I find it bizarre that you will accept the physics that says that there is
ink on paper (the Bible) but not the physics that says that the Earth is
*old* (by human standards).
Let me get this straight: You are willing to accept the completely bizarre
rantings, poetry, and mythology of a book written mostly over two thousand
years ago, completely without substantiation, but you *reject* the evidence
of physics, geology, geophysics, chemistry, astronomy, biology, and so on
that indicates that the Earth is billions of years old? That's *weird*, man,
weird. That's like a child accepting that Santa Claus exists (because it
says so in some book) while denying that his own *hands* exist, though he
can feel and see them just as well as anyone else can feel and see *their*
hands. Is there an explanation for this wacky inversion of epistemology?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 24 2000 - 18:34:16 EDT