DEVOSCM@RUG.NL (Marco de Vos, Kapteyn Lab, Groningen) (02/28/90)
> >David, > >let me give you an example of why radioactive dating does not work out: > >1) There is a very famous human skull, which has been named "Zinjathro- > pus". With a certain method, it has been "proven" that this skull is > 1 3/4 million years old. But Dr. R. Whitelaw recently "proved" with > a radio-carbon-method that this skull is only some 10 000 years old. > Quite a difference, isn't it? > Sorry, but this is not an example of "why" radioactive dating does not work, but one (may be one out of many) "where" radioactive dating seems to produce inconsistent results. That is already important enough. It clearly shows that one cannot rely too much on those results. It does not prove however, that radioactive dating always gives wrong results. There may be quite good reasons for the difference in this particular case. >Comments? >Matt Well, they're just comments. Your examples show that theories may be wrong. For that reason, they're important enough, because many scientists (at least astronomers) tend to think the present status of science is almost it. That's the sad thing about science. There's no guarantee that you on the right track, because nobody knows. That may be shows may be the big difference between "science" and "religion". Because God knows, and is willing to reveal things to us. That does not prevent us from making errors, but there is a couple of guarantees involved. For instance that He loves us, and sent His own Son to save us. In His love, Marco. +------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Kapteyn Lab. BITNET: DEVOSCM@HGRRUG5 cccccccc | | P.O. Box 800 INTERNET: DEVOSCM@RUG.NL c m m c | | 9700 AV GRONINGEN DECNET: DEVOSCM@RUGR86 c m m m c | | The Netherlands PSI: 15901310200 c m m c | | v m m | | Phone: *31 50 634063 v v | | Fax: *31 50 636100 v v | | Telex: 53572 stars nl v | +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
UK3W@DKAUNI2 (Matt Will (MOW)) (02/28/90)
David, let me give you an example of why radioactive dating does not work out: 1) There is a very famous human skull, which has been named "Zinjathro- pus". With a certain method, it has been "proven" that this skull is 1 3/4 million years old. But Dr. R. Whitelaw recently "proved" with a radio-carbon-method that this skull is only some 10 000 years old. Quite a difference, isn't it? 2) The evolutionists say that the moon is billions of years old, and during that period of time, there have been lots of meteors falling on the surface of the moon. Therefore, a thick layer of dust should be found on the surface of the moon, which, considering the age of the moon, could have the thickness of a couple of meters. Therefore, when men landed on the moon, the landing equipment was equipped with special feet (very expensive). It really was a big waste of money, because, as you know, and as the creationists had predicted, there was not even an inch of dust on the moon. Now, the second example does not quite match with what you said. But I think it speaks for itself. Comments? Matt