Message 119 of 212 (111422)
05-29-2004 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by almeyda
05-29-2004 7:09 AM
Almeyda, how about posting stuff in your own words rather than linking to long audio clips of lies? In an audio clip it's difficult to focus on specific issues and it's impossible to check references; I suspect that you like audio clips for exactly that reason.
As a side comment on your post in New Topics, I strongly suggest that your hour-long clip of Sarfati be disallowed. Sarfati's a worse liar than Ham or Wieland, and I've seen all he has to say on the subject; it's not worth one minute's attention, much less an hour. If you have something to say, say it.
Ham and Wieland either know nothing about how the Earth is dated or they are deliberately lying about it. They are useless as a source of information about the age of the Earth. They are recycling old and tired misrepresentations and spouting ignorant garbage.
I note a blatant lie right at the beginning: "the only way to measure elapsed time is to be there measuring it with a stopwatch; you can't scientifically measure anything older than your own lifetime". (That's not an exact quote, but it's close).
His claim that the "assumptions" of radiometric dating are unprovable is old news. It is sort of true in a strict interpretation, but you might as well say that by the same standard you can't prove that gravity exists. The "assumptions" of radiometric dating have been and continue to be checked and cross-checked and validated to a fare-thee-well.
They mention the "studies" in which creationists have managed to get obviously wrong dates for recent flows by not following standard procedures (that is, cheating). They do not mention the cases in which recent lava flows were correctly dated, such as Precise dating of the destruction of Pompeii proves argon-argon method can reliably date rocks as young as 2,000 years. By not telling you how the creationist studies were flawed and by not giving a realistic accont of the abilities of dating, they are lying by omission.
And, of course, they pull the standard creationist trick of ignoring isochron dating and concordia-discordia dating, (and the vast majority of dates measured today use one of these methods), in which the "assumptions" they list are relaxed or not used at all.
All in all, a total waste of time, and nothing there that I haven't seen a hundred times before, and nothing there that hasn't been discussed and debunked in this and many other forums. Dressing it up in an audio clip doesn't add anything; it's just much less interesting and useful thatn a written presentation with references.
If you really want to learn about radioisotope dating, see Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective. Until you've read that and understood it (whether or not you agree with it) you have no business commenting on the age of the Earth and radioisotope dating.
|This message is a reply to:|
| ||Message 118 by almeyda, posted 05-29-2004 7:09 AM|| ||almeyda has not yet responded|