RE: RATE

From: Glenn Morton (glennmorton@entouch.net)
Date: Sun Oct 05 2003 - 21:44:39 EDT

  • Next message: George Murphy: "2 essentials for biblical interpretation (Was Re: RATE)"

    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
    >Behalf Of allenroy
    >Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 8:05 PM

    >To me, isometric dating is pure fairy tale based on some of the
    >evidence I've
    >given already. By chemical composition I was primarily discussing
    >differences
    >in ratios of isotopes. I don't believe that would change much the overall
    >chemical composition of the island chains

    And it works based upon the evidence I gave on the Hawaiian islands. you
    didn't explain why the radioactive dating matches the topography of the
    islands. Changing isotopes shouldn't affect the wearing down of the
    islands. Explain that.

    >
    >> I simply do not have the time to spend hours or days producing
    >the argument
    >> needed when we all know that Allen simply will deny it, on some totally
    >> incoherent argument.
    >
    >Incoherency is in the eyes of the beholder.

    Not hardly. the above statement sounds like you don't accept the existence
    of objective truth. are you a relativist? do you believe truth is relative?

    When you explain why the isotopes change with a lowering of topography (or
    raising depending on the direction one looks), then you have the beginnings
    of a coherent theory.
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Oct 05 2003 - 21:44:55 EDT