From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Fri Jan 10 2003 - 14:45:26 EST
This posting must get the prize for one of the most inaccurate supposedbits
of science ever put onthe list.
Allen wrote;
As most every one knows,
> radiometric dating is done primarily on igneous rock.
Many many age-deteminations are done on metamorphic and sedimentary rocks
and always have been. I flipped through my copy of the 1967 Geol Soc of
London "Phanerozoic Timescale" Lots of samples were on metamorphic and
sedimentary rocks.(Incidentally thiswas one of the sources Woodmarappe
misquoted from in his 1970s list of 700 or so anomalous ages. I checked 100
of his anomalous ages and found he hadmisquoted everyone.)
So as Allen starts with such a howler I cant be bothered to refute him point
by point.
However I find his insinuations of shoddy practice by geochronologists
offensive as they are basically charging them with dishonesty. Four of my
teachers at university (Oxford) were leading geochronologists - including
Stephen Moorbath so I am speaking with personal knowledge. Moorbath's
research assistant (with aD.Phil form Oxford) who leftto be an evangelical
misssionary dismissed creationsit attacks on geochronology as downright
dishonest.
However I am forced to one of three conclusions;
1) He is very careless and naive in his study
2) He is invincibly ignorant
3) He is aware he is misrepresenting radiometric age-dating.
I would like to know whether scientific honesty is part of the Biblically
based paradigm of Creationary Cataclysmism
None of these are honouring to God. I would suggest Allen does something
about it.
Michael
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Jan 12 2003 - 10:24:16 EST