From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Thu Oct 02 2003 - 04:31:42 EDT
I have read YEC stuff on radiometric dating since 1971 beginning with tGF.
They make claims but these turn to dust on examination as they are simply
misunderstanding and misquotation.
Take a recent work by Andy Macintosh "Genesis for Today " published in
Britain 2001.- the only country in the world in which the leader of the
government endorses the teaching of YECreationism in state schools
Misstatements
1. p186 Fossils cannot be dated by radiometric means "Radiometric techniques
... can only be used on IGNEOUS rock"
2. p190 K-Ar can only be used on volcanic rock
He then cites the Cardenas basalts of the Grand Canyon as 1by. Surtsey etc.
Where do you start with these howlers?
Then consider Woodmarappe's work espec his CRSQ article of 1979 where he
lists 700 "anomalous" dates. I checked 100 which were all misquotes etc.
Un til YEC "researchers" refute this type of shoddy stuff from 1961 to2001
(and later) they cannot be taken as serious or competent researchers.
You will find some critique on the talk origins site , Wiens paper on the
ASA site etc etc etc .
Glenn will fire a broadside!
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "John W Burgeson" <jwburgeson@juno.com>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 5:42 PM
Subject: RATE
> 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?
>
> Burgy
>
> www.burgy.50megs.com
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
> Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
> Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Oct 02 2003 - 04:30:16 EDT