From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Wed Oct 01 2003 - 19:08:37 EDT
John W Burgeson wrote:
>
> I'd like to start a new topic, very tightly focused.
>
> AIG sent me this ad:
> ----
> Don't miss it. A bombshell for anyone who believes in millions of years!
> Startling breakthroughs in radiometric dating--announced by the
> five-year-old RATE (Radioactivity and the Age of The Earth) research
> group--will put scientists who believe in 'millions of years' on the run.
> Make sure to tell your friends!
>
> Read about this cutting-edge research that confirms biblical history this
> week at:
> http://www.AnswersInGenesis.org
> -----
> The October 2003 Acts and facts, from ICR, also features this work.
>
> One claim being made includes the fact that "100 million year old" coal
> still contains C14. It should contain none. A second claim, made by
> Humphreys, is that, based on the helium content of granite, the flood was
> 5680 +- 2000 year ago. "This is prima facie evidence for a young earth,"
> he writes (pg 2).
>
> My perception is that ICR, AOSA and AIG are using this research (?) as a
> major new thrust to argue their YEC claims.
>
> ICR's "Impact #364" contains a somewhat technical (high school level)
> analysis of Humphrey's claim by John Baumgardner, an ICR geophysicist.
> Page iii of that monograph has a graphic which renames C14 as "modern
> carbon" and is clearly created by someone who never read Tufte's book on
> how to make graphics.
>
> Comments?
I took a quick look at the AIG claims. Nobody should take this seriously until
it is published in refereed professional journals. That is not because there is
anything magic about such journals, but because of the history of errors & dissimulation
by YEC spokespersons. Of course they will continue to trumpet these claims even without
such validation.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Oct 01 2003 - 19:13:01 EDT