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 : Wed May 03 2000 - 22:30:17 EDT