ASA - December 1999: Laurence Kulp

------=_NextPart_000_0007_01BF416B.042C9540
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I have been reading Numbers' "The Creationists" (again) and came across =
something I'd like to get clarified.

According to Numbers, J. Laurence Kulp led many of the ASA (in 1948) in =
"boldly shedding the trite fundamentalist apologetics of the past." =
[i.e. Flood geology] (p165) And that, "Largely because of Kulp's powers =
of persuasion, flood geologists found themselves increasingly isolated =
within the ASA." (p169) Kulp, a chemist and geologist, studied under =
Libby, Fermi and Urey and set up the "second carbon-14 laboratory in the =
country," and then pioneered "in the application of radiocarbon dating =
to the geological problems," (p163)

Here is where I'd like some clarification. In 1948, Kulp presented a =
paper at the ASA convention on the antiquity of man. Afterwards he =
pointed out that "only one assumption -- a uniform rate of radioactive =
disintegration -- was necessary to prove a very old earth." (p164) Is =
this still the general consensus among those of the ASA? Does Numbers =
correctly explain Kelp's position?

Here is why I wonder if Numbers got it right. The reason geologists =
would be concerned about a uniform rate for radioactive disintegration =
is so that one can then compute the age of organic material (in the case =
of 14C) or magma (in the case of other radiometric schemes). If it =
happened to be non-uniform, then there might be problems, but scientific =
evidence does seem to point to a fairly uniform rate for most =
radioactive elements.

All measuring tools must be long enough (or short enough) to be able to =
be used accurately. One would not use a yard stick to measure the =
dimension of an atom, nor use a yard stick to physically measure the =
distance between the earth and the moon. It is assumed that whatever is =
to be measured corresponds to the measuring device one uses. In the case =
of radiometric dating magmatic rocks one must assume that the rocks have =
existed for as long as radiometric dating can measure. Otherwise, what =
is the point of trying to measure the date. If the rocks are much older =
than the measuring tool can reach then why bother. In fact, this very =
idea is why no one bothers to measure the age of non-mineralized =
"fossils" found in rock much older than the 100,000 year limit of 14C. =
The same would hold true, if rocks were actually much younger than what =
the measuring tool might seem to indicate.=20

Here is why I'm puzzled by Kupl's statement: "only one assumption -- a =
uniform rate of radioactive disintegration -- was necessary to prove a =
very old earth." (p164) We all know that you cannot prove what you =
assume. Since we must first assume the rocks are old enough to be =
measured, the measuring device cannot be used to prove that the rock is =
old. Yet Kulp appears to do just that. Radiometric dating proves an =
old earth, but an old earth must first be assumed in order to use =
radiometric dating. Wasn't Kulp aware of this false twist of logic? =
Surely such a highly educated and knowledgeable student of the sciences =
would not make such a glaring mistake as this. Or, Did Numbers =
misrepresent Kulp's position?

------=_NextPart_000_0007_01BF416B.042C9540
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I have been reading Numbers’ "The Creationists" (again) and = came across=20 something I’d like to get clarified.

According to Numbers, J. Laurence Kulp led many of the ASA (in 1948) = in=20 "boldly shedding the trite fundamentalist apologetics of the past." = [i.e. Flood=20 geology] (p165) And that, "Largely because of Kulp’s powers of = persuasion, flood=20 geologists found themselves increasingly isolated within the ASA." = (p169) Kulp,=20 a chemist and geologist, studied under Libby, Fermi and Urey and set up = the=20 "second carbon-14 laboratory in the country," and then pioneered "in the = application of radiocarbon dating to the geological problems," = (p163)

Here is where I’d like some clarification. In 1948, Kulp = presented a paper at=20 the ASA convention on the antiquity of man. Afterwards he pointed out = that "only=20 one assumption -- a uniform rate of radioactive = disintegration --=20 was necessary to prove a very old earth." (p164) Is this still the = general=20 consensus among those of the ASA? Does Numbers correctly explain Kelp's=20 position?

Here is why I wonder if Numbers got it right. The reason geologists = would be=20 concerned about a uniform rate for radioactive disintegration is so that = one can=20 then compute the age of organic material (in the case of 14C) or magma = (in the=20 case of other radiometric schemes). If it happened to be non-uniform, = then there=20 might be problems, but scientific evidence does seem to point to a = fairly=20 uniform rate for most radioactive elements.

All measuring tools must be long enough (or short enough) to be able = to be=20 used accurately. One would not use a yard stick to measure the dimension = of an=20 atom, nor use a yard stick to physically measure the distance between = the earth=20 and the moon. It is assumed that whatever is to be measured corresponds = to the=20 measuring device one uses. In the case of radiometric dating magmatic = rocks one=20 must assume that the rocks have existed for as long as radiometric = dating can=20 measure. Otherwise, what is the point of trying to measure the date. If = the=20 rocks are much older than the measuring tool can reach then why bother. = In fact,=20 this very idea is why no one bothers to measure the age of = non-mineralized=20 "fossils" found in rock much older than the 100,000 year limit of 14C. = The same=20 would hold true, if rocks were actually much younger than what the = measuring=20 tool might seem to indicate.

Here is why I’m puzzled by Kupl’s statement: "only = one=20 assumption -- a uniform rate of radioactive disintegration -- was = necessary=20 to prove a very old earth." (p164) We all know that you cannot = prove what=20 you assume. Since we must first assume the rocks are old enough to = be=20 measured, the measuring device cannot be used to prove that the rock is=20 old. Yet Kulp appears to do just that. Radiometric dating = proves an=20 old earth, but an old earth must first be assumed in order to use = radiometric=20 dating. Wasn’t Kulp aware of this false twist of logic? Surely = such a highly=20 educated and knowledgeable student of the sciences would not make such a = glaring=20 mistake as this. Or, Did Numbers misrepresent Kulp’s position?

Help me out here.

Allen