Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!petsd!pesnta!hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 31)
Message-ID: <537@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 5-Jul-85 18:27:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: psivax.537
Posted: Fri Jul  5 18:27:34 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 9-Jul-85 05:48:51 EDT
References: <385@iham1.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Distribution: net
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 83
Summary: 

In article <385@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes:
>
>     THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
>
>II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND  LIFE
>    WERE RECENTLY CREATED.
>
>    B.  TECHNIQUES THAT ARGUE FOR AN OLD EARTH ARE EITHER ILLOGICAL OR
>        ARE BASED ON UNREASONABLE ASSUMPTIONS.
>
>       57.  Any estimated date  prior  to  the  beginning  of  written
>            records  must necessarily assume that the dating clock has
>            operated at a known rate, that the initial setting of  the
>            clock is known, and that the clock has not been disturbed.
>            These  assumptions   are   almost   always   unstated   or
>            overlooked.

	Actually, this is false, you simply must look at papers
written on this subject, not papers on other subjects! When you
look at the clock at work do you question its accuracy? After all
it is not *your* job to set the clock. Why should a paper on, for
instance, a newly discoverd fossil be expected to discuss the
assumptions and details of radiometric dating? All it need do is
provide on or two references as a key to the relevant literature!
>
>       58.  A major assumption that underlies all  radioactive  dating
>            techniques  is  that  the  rates of decay, which have been
>            essentially constant over the past  70  years,  have  also
>            been  constant  over  the  past  4,600,000,000 years. This
>            bold, critical, and untestable  assumption  is  made  even
>            though   no  one  knows  what  causes  radioactive  decay.
>            Furthermore, there is conflicting evidence  that  suggests
>            that  radioactive  decay  has not always been constant but
>            has varied by many orders of magnitude from that  observed
>            today [a,b].

	We don't know what causes radioactive decay!?!? Please! Talk
to a quantum physicist sometime!  What evidence do you see for variable
rates of decay? I would like to see it, or at least some references to
some articles in *refereed* journals, right now I do not believe it.
>
>            a)  Robert V. Gentry, ''Radiohalos in Coalified Wood:  New
>                Evidence  Relating to the Time of Uranium Introduction
>                and  Coalification,''  SCIENCE,  Vol.194,  15  October
>                1976, pp. 315-317.

	This is not really germane, since it does not really question
any of the basic assumptions of radiometric dating. All it does is
propose a revision of the model of when Uraniium gets incorporated into
coal during its formation. This *would* require a revision of certain
age estimates, if it is validated by other researchers.

>
>       59.  The  public  has  been  greatly  misled   concerning   the
>            consistency,    reliability,    and   trustworthiness   of
>            radiometric dating techniques (the Potassium-Argon method,
>            the  Rubidium-Strontium  method,  and the Uranium-Thorium-
>            Lead method).  Many of the published dates can be  checked
>            by  comparisons with the assumed ages for the fossils that
>            sometimes lie above and below radiometrically dated  rock.
>            In  over  400  of these published checks (about half), the
>            radiometrically determined ages were at least one geologic
>            age  in  error--indicating major errors in methodology. An
>            unanswered question is, ''How  many  other  dating  checks
>            were NOT PUBLISHED because they too were in error?'' [a,b]
>
	Wow! Talk about geting things turned around backwards! The age
estimates of fossils are for all intents and purposes *based* on
radiometric dating! If the older age estimates disagree with new ones
this is a reason to revise the estimates on the basis of the new data!
Really! Many original fossil age estimates are only very indirectly
based on radiometric dating via a chain of correlations. Such a method
is intrinsically imprecise, so when radiometric data becomes available
for a new set of formations, it is the fossil age estimates that are
likely to be wrong. In fact all you are doing is comparing the
accuracy of interpolation to the accuracy of direct measurement,
with the expected results that one is less accurate than the other!
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

{trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen