tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post1907801953149307147..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: The Bible, Rocks and TimeRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-9303787463623170582008-12-17T17:07:00.000-05:002008-12-17T17:07:00.000-05:00Steve, I'm not sure if you've seen this, but I wa...Steve, <BR/> I'm not sure if you've seen this, but I wanted to see if you could comment on the absurdity of the Emergent Village. They wrote an article titled "So Long, Sola?". Its a blatant attack on Sola Scriptura.<BR/><BR/>http://www.emergentvillage.com/weblog/so-long-solaJavierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10109941427897983854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-48607877950116997492008-12-17T09:07:00.000-05:002008-12-17T09:07:00.000-05:00Well, Ed, whatever the merits, or not, of your own...Well, Ed, whatever the merits, or not, of your own argument, I was responding to the argument of Young and Stearley, which is not the same as your argument.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-51570148396263791812008-12-16T22:10:00.000-05:002008-12-16T22:10:00.000-05:00Steve, you wrote: i) I don’t see how that really a...Steve, you wrote: <BR/><BR/>i) I don’t see how that really addresses the problem. Why go through the motions of dating an object if you’re going to discount the results in case they conflict with your preconception of the “correct” date? If the experimental results don’t matter, then what’s the basis of your expectation? And if absolute dating techniques sometimes yield “discrepant,” “unexpected,” “unusable,” or “meaningless” dates, then why doesn’t that call into question the reliability of the underlying methods?<BR/><BR/>ii) Also, I don’t deny that other factors could “contaminate” the result, but isn’t that a backdoor admission that assigning the correct age involves a number of other, often imponderable, variables? It is possible to reconstruct all of the salient variables from the trace evidence?<BR/><BR/>~~~~~~~~~<BR/><BR/>My reply to what you wrote:<BR/><BR/>Hi Steve,<BR/><BR/>I've studied such questions with geologists, and there is no way to get into all the complexities in a blog reply, except to say that experiments have proven that certain types of crystals for instance are better than other types of crystals at imprisoning argon and other radioactive gases. They can put such crystals in an oven and see how well that crystal holds in such gases. And so geologists learned to look for the ROCKS THAT ARE KNOWN FOR HOLDING IN THE GASES BEST, LETTING LESS GAS ESCAPE, before dating such a rock.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, dating is EXPENSIVE, geologists are not simply dating everything in sight and tossing out any dates that they "don't like." That would cost millions of dollars. <BR/><BR/>Thirdly, Glenn Morton graphed Woody's discordant dates, and showed that even a graph made of nothing but discordant dates produced a graph showing a straight vertical slope, as expected if radioactive dating in general is correct.Edwardtbabinskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13036816926421936940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-27113301863048358902008-12-16T13:53:00.000-05:002008-12-16T13:53:00.000-05:00The authors devote several pages to Henry Morris. ...<I>The authors devote several pages to Henry Morris. I don’t see the point of this.</I><BR/><BR/><I>Since this book is pitched at a semipopular level...</I><BR/><BR/>I think you've answered your own question. Having grown up in YEC circles, I can testify that Morris is near-gospel for the audience to which this book is pitched. Makes sense to reference those authors which hold greatest sway over your target audience.NEBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05832082589817272303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-26643781965826701532008-12-13T09:05:00.000-05:002008-12-13T09:05:00.000-05:00GATESOFSPLENDOR SAID:"What is some of the evidence...GATESOFSPLENDOR SAID:<BR/><BR/>"What is some of the evidence the give against Austin's interpretation of the data? Just curious."<BR/><BR/>To take one example, on p247, they quote from a book about the Grand Canyon, then offer the following criticism:<BR/><BR/>"This description fails to note that the 'body fossils' in various Grand Canyon rocks are almost all marine shells that are typically disarticulated and sorted by currents. The soft tissues have long ago disappeared. The use of the word rapidly is ambiguous here—there is no need to postulate near-instantaneous massive burial to preserve these durable hard parts. Similarly, the preservation of traces requires a consistent environment during the formation and lithification of the sediment but not catastrophic sedimentation.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-58406748991443421162008-12-12T17:14:00.000-05:002008-12-12T17:14:00.000-05:00Dominic,See here:http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/...Dominic,<BR/><BR/>See here:<BR/><BR/>http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-875254-7.pdfstevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-83591417623643970412008-12-12T16:42:00.000-05:002008-12-12T16:42:00.000-05:00Steve, you say:For a book on dating, they don’t ad...Steve, you say:<BR/><BR/><EM>For a book on dating, they don’t address the old, ongoing debate between temporal metrical objectivism and temporal metrical conventionalism. But, as I understand it, that debate raises the question of whether anything has an absolute date. That transcends the issue of dating techniques.</EM><BR/><BR/>This sounds very interesting to me, and I've not heard of it before. Do you know of any online sources which summarize the topic well?Dominic Bnonn Tennanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03103838704540924679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-28340357422718987312008-12-12T16:35:00.000-05:002008-12-12T16:35:00.000-05:00"The authors spend a lot of time criticizing Austi..."The authors spend a lot of time criticizing Austin’s explanation of the Grand Canyon. They think the geological phenomena are too varied to be the product of a one-time event (Noah’s flood). Maybe they’re right. Since I think the Scriptural data is noncommittal on the extent of the flood, I have no personal stake in that debate."<BR/><BR/>What is some of the evidence the give against Austin's interpretation of the data? Just curious.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com