I've read this crap. Pure non-sense.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hofmann, Jim <jhofmann@Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU>
To: 'John M. Lynch ' <john.lynch@asu.edu>; 'Allen & Diane Roy '
<Dianeroy@peoplepc.com>
Cc: 'Evolution Reflector ' <evolution@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 7:40 PM
Subject: RE: How is this for an Anti-Evolutionist's use of quotes?
> On isochrons, see
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html
>
> (It's all in one color and one font.)
> :)
> Jim Hofmann
>
http://nsmserver2.fullerton.edu/departments/chemistry/evolution_creation/web
> /
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John M. Lynch
> To: Allen & Diane Roy
> Cc: Evolution Reflector
> Sent: 5/3/00 7:30 PM
> Subject: Re: How is this for an Anti-Evolutionist's use of quotes?
>
> Allen & Diane Roy wrote:
> [snip]
> > Since, assumptions 3 and 5 are commonly false, then the whole concept
> > is pseudoscience nonsense (to put it kindly). If you want to accept
> > radiometric dating, go ahead. No amount of rationalization can make
> > falsified assumptions valid. I prefer my logic to be sound.
>
> ... and you've managed to completely ignore the fact that deviations
> from these assumptions can be detected (e.g. isochron analysis). If they
> are 'commonly false,' we know when they are, and why.
>
> It's analogous to a test for, say, a biochemical disease. It works
> _most_ of the time, and by use of controls etc we can detect when it
> wont work.
>
> -jml
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 04 2000 - 01:11:06 EDT