From: Susan Brassfield <Susan-Brassfield@ou.edu>
> 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 measurements. Then you compute the resulting age. BUT, that age
> >does not and cannot prove
> >that the rock is 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.
Maybe, maybe not. But random results is besides the point. Even if they
were all in absolute agreement they would not and could not be used to prove
that the rocks were old. You have to first agree with the assumption that
the rock is old and then you can accept the ages as valid. But if you do
not agree with the assumption that the rock is old, then 100% agreement of
dates would not be indicative of an old age but rather of the peculiarities
of the chemical mixtures of the rocks. It all comes down to what you assume
as correct first, then comes the interpretation of the data acquired.
> The results would almost never agree because
> the assumptions are incorrect. They do agree.
In his latest book on radiometric dating (The Mythology of Radiometric
Dating, 1999), Woodmorappe shows that two random number lists will have
agreement (with the same kind of accuracy allowed for agreement between
radiometric dates) with in the first 20 to 30 pairs of numbers. Thus one
can expect a lot of agreement just between two random number lists.
Agreement between 3 random number lists occurs within the first 100 to 200
numbers. Agreement is not impossible even for purely random number lists.
He also points out that much "agreement" is so much hocus pocus.
> Isotopes decay at a regular rate.
This is not the issue.
> 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 fulfill them!
Many of the prophecies of Daniel were not fulfilled by the time of the New
Testament. And most of those which had been fulfilled by the time of the NT
are not mentioned in the NT.
> >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.
As I mentioned above, the NT does not discuss most of those prophecies of
Daniel which had been fulfilled by NT times. And many of the prophecies of
Daniel were fulfilled after NT times and some have yet to be fulfilled.
Revelation is only vague to those who misunderstand the prophecies of Daniel
and/or who try to impart their own interpretation onto Revelation (and
Daniel) rather than letting the Bible interpret itself. Using Biblical
principals of interpreting Bible prophecies makes understanding the
prophecies a fairly simple thing. The 4 major prophecies of Daniel are
parallel with each other and cover history (and the future) from the time of
Daniel to the next coming of Jesus in the near future. Most of Daniel has
been precisely fulfilled and only a dozen or so verses remain. Revelation
parallels much of Daniel, but beginning in the time of John in the first
century AD. Much of Revelation has been fulfilled historically since the
days of John. There also remain only small portions of Revelation yet to be
fulfilled. See: http://www.tagnet.org/anotherviewpoint/Daniel/
There have always been some Christians who have not only misunderstood the
prophecies of Daniel and Revelation, but also much of the Bible besides.
This is not a valid argument against the truthfulness of the Prophecies and
their fulfillment. God does not make nor expect automatons out of
believers.
> Nostradamus has a similar track record. So what?
>
Nostradamus was a foolish rambler writing nonsensical lines of French
"poetry." Read Nostradamus, then read Daniel -- there is no comparison.
Nostradamus is a fools prophet.
Allen
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 02 2000 - 00:03:46 EST