> > Allen:
>> > 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.
>{Susan} > I'd wonder where you got this nonsense, but I know it is widely
>spread
>> around creationist websites and books. Please read:
>>
>><http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dat
>>ing.html
>> The assumption underlying radiometric dating is that isotopes decay at a
>> steady rate and that rate is measurable.
Allen:
>I read the TO article and it does not address the point I am making. The
>assumption I am discussing
>is so basic that it appears that few people have thought much about it.
me:
it's because it's *really* weak!
Allen:
>[My notes are in []s and color coded if you email reader shows Rich (HTM
>L) Text.]
(it doesn't. In fact you should turn off your HTML when sending to a
listserv such as this, because we get garbage formatting.)
Allen:
>The same applies to radiometric dating. You must first assume that a
>rock is old enough to be
>measured by whatever means of measurement you expect will get the correct
>results. Then you do
>your measurments. Then you compute the resulting age. BUT, that age
>does not and connot prove
>that the rock old, nor that it is even that age, BECAUSE it is FIRST
>ASSUMED that the rock is old
>enough to be measured as that old! One of the first rules of logic is
>that you cannot prove what you >have assumed.
IF this were the case, then measuring various rocks by various methods
would yield random results. The results would almost never agree because
the assumptions are incorrect. They do agree. Isotopes decay at a regular
rate.
> > Allen:
>> > It all comes down to which is true. The Bible is. All others are not.
>>
>> and why is that? because you believe so? or do you have some evidence?
>>There
>> is an identical amount of evidence for Spider Woman and the Cosmic Egg.
>> The following comes from one of my web pages:
> * "Remember what happened long ago;
>acknowledge that I alone am God
>and that there is no one else like me.
>From the beginning I predicted the outcome;
>long ago I foretold what would happen.
>I said that my plans would never fail,
>that I would do everything I intended to do."
>Isaiah 46:9, 10
Me:
This would be a heck of a lot more impressive if the people who wrote the
story of the outcomes hadn't already read the story of the predictions. In
other words the writers of the New Testament know about the OT predictions
and amazingly the NT turned out to fullfill them!
>DO YOU GET THE PICTURE!
I sure do!
>Fulfillment of the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation prove God exists!
*IF* the people who wrote the NT had not known about the prophecies of
Daniel I'd be impressed. The prophecies of Revelations are so vague that
every few years for the last 1500 or so, religionists have been convinced
that the predictions have come true.
Nostradamus has a similar track record. So what?
Susan
----------
For if there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing
of life as in hoping for another and in eluding the implacable grandeur of
this one.
--Albert Camus
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 01 2000 - 17:45:40 EST