first consider the source:
"Dr Andrew Snelling is a geologist with a B.Sc. (Hons) from The
University of New South Wales and a Ph. D. from The University of
Sydney...., but now also works full-time with the Creation Science
Foundation where he contributes to Creation Ex Nihilo magazine and edits
the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal. He resides in Brisbane,
Australia.
So he's a creationist. Big deal!
You're wearing a wizard's hat on your web site. Does that detract
from your credibility or the legitimacy of the arguments you espouse?
I understand and accept that you do not ascribe the origin of life
and the environment that sustains it to supernatural means, (despite
your wizard's hat!), but I expect that a man of your intellect and
education should limit commentary to the substance of the argument.
Second, the example you cite doesn't negate the technique, it just calls
for caution in selecting a site with an appropriate geomorphology to
ensure an accurate date, free from confounding variables. what the
article really says is that Koongarra, Australia is not a good site for
dating.
Did you miss the introduction? Let me quote it for you:
"However, it is important to remember that all radiometric dating
methods are based on three main assumptions:-
1. The physico-chemical system must have always been closed. Thus
no parent, daughter or other decay products within the system can have
been removed, and no parent, daughter or other decay products from
outside the system can have been added.
2. The system must initially have contained none of its daughter
elements or decay products, or at the very least we need to know the
starting conditions/state of the decay system.
3. The decay rate, referred to as the half-life of the radioactive
parent element, must have always been the same, that is, constant.
The highly speculative nature of all radiometric dating methods
becomes apparent when one realizes that none of the above assumptions
is either valid or provable. Put simply, none of these assumptions can
have been observed to have always been true throughout the supposed
millions of years the radioactive elements have presumed to have been
decaying."
This is hardly calling for caution in the Koongarra, Australia case
alone. The author calls into question the underlying assumptions of
all radiometric dating methods, according to what he has written
above. Dr. Snelling criticizes the application of uranium - thorium -
lead in general, then presents 5 points from the Koongarra
mineralization data to demonstrate why this particular formation
cannot be accurately dated by the U - Th - Pb method. Here's another
quote:
"Indeed, the U- Th-Pb system is well known to be prone to open system
behaviour, with U being particularly geochemically mobile, meaning
that U is readily lost from the crystal lattices of the minerals used
for 'dating', including zircons. Pb is also prone to diffusion from
minerals. Thus it is questionable as to why this radiometric 'dating'
method is still used. Instead, it is increasingly being applied in
more sophisticated ways to geological 'dating' problems."
He's indicting the whole process with statements of this nature.
Now, geology is not my field, but I read English well enough to
comprehend that this man disputes long age chronology using
radiometric methods because he contends:
"As with all the other apparent isochron 'ages', these results from
the weathered rocks and soils have no apparent geological meaning,
because there is no geological event to which these 'ages' might
correlate."
Now you write here:
radiometric dating, when performed by experienced scientists, and
reviewed by peers, is the best method for determining the ages on lots
of stuff, and far and away better than consulting the often transcribed
oral history of a desert tribe from thousands of years ago.
But Dr. Snelling is not arguing that the Hebrew creation poem
presents a superior, scientific explanation. He's claiming that the
conclusions drawn from radiometric dating methods that he describes as
an "open system" present an invalid means of determining the age of
geologic formations. That is the essence of his argument.
In the event that you haven't actually read the oral history of that
particular desert tribe, nowhere does it state the age of the earth.
Short age creation chronology is a problem codified on our behalf by
Bishop Ussher, not the Hebrews.
Lets talk about protein first, the stuff dna codes for. Hemoglobin is a good example. It is the oxygen carrier for
distribution of oxygen in a great number of animals. If I look at the
specific amino acid sequence in hemoglobin, I see that is my hemoglobin
is essentially identical to the hemoglobin of every human on the planet.
(ok if you have tay-sachs disease or sickle cell anemia, you have a
single amino acid substitution) If I examine the hemoglobin of a
chimpanzee, it is only sightly different. If I examine that of a howler
monkey, more so, and a cow even more so. Hence the obvious
phylogenetic relationship. Now you may not think you evolved from a
cow, (and actually you didn't)but you did evolve from an organism
preceded both human and cows.
That is one possible conclusion to draw. Another involves
conservation of design. Both draw from the same evidence and arrive
at contrasting conclusions because of the assumptions that undergird
analysis of the data.
sure you can. I can cut individual amino acids off either end of the
strand, I can selectively cut a chain only between a specific pair of
amino acids, etc. and yes I can know erectly the sequence. The advent
of the manipulation of DNA is even better because their is more
"information" in dna than the polypeptides it codes for. But that is a
longer story. But then I am employing the understanding gained thru
application of the atomic THEORY. Get it, it's a theory, and it works to
explain a broad realm of knowledge.
Indeed! : - )
You can do all of this because you're smart enough to understand how
it works. The information in DNA brings up an important problem that
evolutionary theory cannot explain, but then, it's only a theory, right?
And now I must conclude and get what I do, teach about doing science.
sorry to cut off the discussion. maybe more when I have time.
Despite what you may believe, I enjoy reading your posts!
robert luis rabello
"The Edge of Justice"
Adventure for Your Mind
http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=9782>
Ranger Supercharger Project Page
http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable):
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
