Re: [asa] ICR for August - update

Dave,
Note that I said that the first 6 were *invalidated* by the IMPACT article
-- not abandoned. Were I a betting man, I would not take your bet because
I'm positive I would lose. I'd even wager that some of these first 6 will
reappear in "proofs" written by Austin &/or Hoesch.

Steve

"D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> wrote on 08/23/2006 10:16:53
PM:

> 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 acceptold
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 10:45:21 2006