Steve,
Are you sure the first 6 have been abandoned? Were I a betting man, I'd
wager that they will reappear in someone's "proof."
Dave
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 14:59:16 -0600 Steven M Smith <smsmith@usgs.gov>
writes:
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 Thu Aug 24 00:20:45 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Aug 24 2006 - 00:20:45 EDT