----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Cogan" <ccogan@telepath.com>
> Roy:
> > 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. The assumption of old rocks must
> > still be taken by faith.
>
> Chris
> This is silly. You have to assume that a distance has length before you
can
> measure its length, but the purpose of measuring it is to determine *what*
> that distance is.
This is not what I said. I said that one has to assume that a distance can
be measured accurately by whatever measuring device you choose to use. You
do not measure the length of a house in light-years. You do not measure the
distance to the moon with a meter stick. To choose which measuring device
to use, you must first assume that the object to be measured can be measured
accuratly by the measuring device being considered
Assuming that something is old is not the same as
> measuring *how* old it is. Further, it is not, ultimately, an *assumption*
> at all that rocks are old. If you wish to claim that we live in kind of
> "virtual reality" which was created five minutes ago (or five *seconds*
> ago), *please* do so, but don't confuse such baseless ideas with science.
I do not make any such silly assumption
> Such a claim, or anything like it, is pure philosophy.
> We *conclude* that rocks are old because that's what the *evidence* (i.e.,
> the Earth itself, the planets, our knowledge of physics, geology,
> geophysics, astronomy, biology, genetics, and so on) indicates.
Sorry, You first assume that the rocks are old. And it is pure philosophy.
No science can prove them old. Science is great for gathering data and
acquiring new data, but it is interpretation of the data within the paradigm
of Evoutionism that says the rocks are old.
We use
> radiometric dating as *one* method of measuring the age of rocks more
> precisely than we could by merely inspecting them. Perhaps it is not as
> precise as we'd like it to be -- few methods of measurement are -- but,
> unless you propose to simply deny the physics that radiometric dating is
> based on, and the fact that it agrees with other methods of measurement,
> etc. -- and provide empirical *facts* to back up your claims, you are
either
> stuck with it or are simply effectively admitting that you are irrational
> and that you have no business being on this list until you have a few
years
> of the study of the relevant sciences, instead of just blindly buying into
> what demagogues like Duane Gish have to say. Go out and take a look at the
> real, *physical*, world; it's a fascinating place.
Radiometric dating is not simply lacking in precision it is pure
pseudo-science. No one denies that radio-isotopes decay at certain rates.
That is not the issue. The issue is that the philosophical assumption of
Actualism (read Non-uniform Uniformitarianism) is real. Concerning
agreement with other methods of measurement, Woodmorappe has shown in his
latest book on the mythology of radiometric dating that correlation to the
same degree of accuracy between methods of dating is matched to that found
between lists of random numbers. I have found that most people are not
capable of distinguishing the difference between empirical facts and
interpretation of data or supposition based on data.
I have spent many years studying the relevant sciences. Unlike you, I do it
critically, rather than gullibly.
> Chris
> Radiometric dating does *not* depend on the assumption that rocks are old.
> It depends on the assumption that radioactive decay proceeds at certain
> rates, and that there is no reason to think that those rates have changed
> radically over time. It *does* have something to do with physics, because
> otherwise it wouldn't be a measurement at all. It depends on quantitive
> ratios of physical substances and how they change over time. That's
> *physics*.
The fact that radioisotopes decay at certain rates is not the issue.
Possible invariation of rates is not the issue. The accurace of
measurements of the isotopes is not the issue. What does matter is the
application of the philisophical tenet of Actualism onto the past by
interpreting the ratios as having meaning for laps of time. One has to fist
assume that Actualism is valid before the determination of age from the
measured ratios has any meaning. That is not physics. It is pure
speculation.
Chris
> There is no eyewitness evidence given in the bible. If you think there is,
> prove it. Find *one* sentence that's eyewitness evidence and prove that
the
> author of it actually *saw* what is claimed.
Genesis 1 and 2 is the record of what God did as God told Adam and Eve (and
passed on from genereation to generation) when he met with them in the cool
of the evenings before the sorry events of their rebellion.
> Chris
> I find it bizarre that you will accept the physics that says that there is
> ink on paper (the Bible) but not the physics that says that the Earth is
> *old* (by human standards).
Any one can see and experience that ink is on paper. No one can experience
that the Earth is old. It is philosophical interpretation of scientific
data which implies an old age.
> Let me get this straight: You are willing to accept the completely bizarre
> rantings, poetry, and mythology of a book written mostly over two thousand
> years ago, completely without substantiation, but you *reject* the
evidence
> of physics, geology, geophysics, chemistry, astronomy, biology, and so on
> that indicates that the Earth is billions of years old? That's *weird*,
man,
> weird. That's like a child accepting that Santa Claus exists (because it
> says so in some book) while denying that his own *hands* exist, though he
> can feel and see them just as well as anyone else can feel and see *their*
> hands. Is there an explanation for this wacky inversion of epistemology?
Let me get this straight: You are willing to accept the unfounded
philosophical concept of Materialism (matter/energy is all there is, there
is nothing else), the mythology of Actualism (Non-uniform Uniformitarianism)
stating that the present is the key to the past but today's events are not
the same as yesterday's, and the bizarre notion of Abiogenesis, on blind
faith, but you reject witness evidence by the one who was there, and who
made it all happen? That's weird, man, weird. That's like believing in
Santa Claus even after your parents told you the truth. You interpret the
data acquired from physics, geology, geophysics, chemistry, astronomy,
biology and so on within your religious beliefs of Evolutionism, while
ignorant of the presuppositions and foundations of your philosophy. It
there an explanation for this wacky inversion of epistemology? Yes, it's
called atheism.
Allen
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 15 2000 - 01:37:08 EDT