"I'm pretty new to the evolution vs. creation debate, only having studied the subject for about four months and only having read a few books (Finding Darwin's God, Climbing Mount Improbable, Darwin's Black Box, and Tower of Babel) about the subject. At the moment, I am convinced that evolution is right and that the earth is far older than six thousand years old."
--I really have yet to read a book directed at the subject of Creation & Evolution, I just read science texts and articles and see where it takes me. I had a big episode in my early times for Evo vs. Cre debate where I read tons of AiG articles. This was about 7 months or so ago and haven't read too many at all for the YEC camp. I think I do fine without them
. Besides, those AiG articles aren't going to give you near what you find when doing your own research and I don't enjoy parroting.
"However, I am interested in radiometric dating and if it is really as accurate as geologists claim it to be. I've read several articles at True.Origin.org and Answersingenesis.org about radiometric dating and they claim that it is unreliable, that different dating techniques give totally random dates when dating the same rock, that radioisotope dating is based on several assumptions, and that geologists have a fixed idea in their minds about how old a rock is from the strata it's found in, and if they date it radiometrically and the date is different from what they thought it would be, they just throw the rock away saying the date is meaningless."
--Why wouldn't they, they already have all this other evidence for an old earth and a set geologic time so why not attribute the correct date to the one which complies. And if an Old earth is assumed correct, this is reasonable.
"I have also read several articles talking about how accurate radiometric dating is, and how yes, the dates do agree."
--And what this means is what is important, the majority of 'dates' compiled will agree, no problem there.
"I am wondering if the creationists' claims are correct, or are they simply throwing blind attacks against modern geology?"
--In my experience, they are correct,. However, they take the product and put unnecessary emphasis on what is irrelevant to the real issue. Such as anomalous dates, etc.
"I'm just another dude trying to figure out the truth. Help me out by having a big debate here."
--I like the word 'discussion', it seems more pervasive. Just my opinion though.
[Edit]Some basic brief discussion on Geochemistry and Radioisotopic distribution/dating may be found in the last three posts here:
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=7&t=12&p=2
And welcome to the board Evo Dude
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 07-20-2002]
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 07-20-2002]