Re: [asa] ICR for August - update

Dave wrote:

<<Steve,
You're right, but I don't think you've penetrated the YEC mind set. They
currently have the nonsensical idea that there was a great acceleration of
radioactivity during the flood, so the dates are not accurate. But they
can use the data to identify sources, probably geographically rather than
temporally. Since they claim that more than 99.99% of all the release of
energy from radioactive sources on earth took place within a year's time,
Noah's geese and Noah were thoroughly cooked, but somehow survived in the
Ark. Since various YEC "authorities" have declared that there is no
evidence that could change their minds (I was present to hear Gish once),
and they are happy with incompatible "explanations" for observed data, you
can't touch them. As Lowell wrote: "The right to be a cussed fool / Is
safe from all devices human...">>

Dave,
I followed the earlier list discussions on the new RATE results and their
admissions that large amounts of radioactive decay have occurred. Although
this is a step in the right direction, it is disheartening to see how much
scientific evidence must accumulate before there is any change in the "YEC
mind set". With respect to radiometric dating, there have been several
YEC objections from different sources. Off the top of my head, I list the
following (I'm sure that I'm forgetting some) ...

1. Radiometric dating methods just don't work. Different methods give
different results.
2. You can't know the initial ratios of parent to daughter elements so you
don't know when the clock started.
3. The dated rocks aren't closed. Parent elements might have been added
later or daughter elements may have been leached out.
4. Scientists assume that the earth is old and therefore only accept old
dates.
5. Dating methods give inconsistent results. Scientists only accept and
report the dates they want and reject the bad dates.
6. Radioactive decay rates are not constant.
7. Radioactive decay rates are constant now but they accelerated at least
once or twice during the past (such as during the Flood, or the Creation
Week, or the Fall)

As you note, #7 seems to be the current idea among the RATE group of YECs.
 However, the use of radiometric dates by Austin & Hoesch suggest that
they now consider arguments #1-6 invalid ... even though they may have
personally used some of them in the past.

You are also correct when you say that I haven't "penetrated the YEC mind
set." I sincerely tried once. I bought into the YEC arguments back
during the 1970's but found that I could not maintain those ideas in the
face of mounting scientific evidence to the contrary. Unlike Gish, there
was enough evidence for me to eventually change my mind.

Steve
[Disclaimer: The thoughts and opinions expressed herein are my own and
are not to be attributed to my employer.]
_____________
 Steven M. Smith, Geologist, U.S. Geological Survey
 Box 25046, M.S. 973, DFC, Denver, CO 80225
 Office: (303)236-1192, Fax: (303)236-3200
 Email: smsmith@usgs.gov
 -USGS Nat'l Geochem. Database NURE HSSR Web Site-
  http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/ofr-97-0492/

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Aug 23 16:59:41 2006