Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site spp2.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwspp!spp2!stassen
From: stassen@spp2.UUCP (Chris Stassen)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: (More) Fossils dating rocks and vice versa
Message-ID: <887@spp2.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 12-Mar-86 11:16:58 EST
Article-I.D.: spp2.887
Posted: Wed Mar 12 11:16:58 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 14-Mar-86 00:10:56 EST
References: <519@imsvax.UUCP> <881@spp2.UUCP>
Reply-To: stassen@spp2.UUCP (Chris Stassen)
Distribution: na
Organization: TRW, Redondo Beach  CA
Lines: 44

In article <519@imsvax>, Ted Holden writes:
> Every one of the systems used to date geological ages and formerly
> living material uses assumptions of continuity which go out the window
> with events of the sort Velikovsky describes, and more than half of them
> are circular (using fossils to date rocks, then using the same dates on
> the rocks to date fossils).  

	(1) The fossil record was established before radiometric dating.

	(2) Radiometric dating AGREED with the estimated ages of the
	    fossils -- another PREDICTION is VERIFIED.

	References:

	"The line between misusing interpretations and actually distorting
facts is a fine one.  Creationists claim, for example, that the chrono-
logical ordering of geological strata depends on evolutionary interpretation
of fossils from simple to complex, and that by circular reasoning the
fossil record is then taken to be evidence of progressive evolution. [11]
	This, however, is simply not true.  As paleontologist David Raup
says, 'The geological time scale in its modern form was fully developed in
about 1840 -- before Darwin's _Origin_of_Species_.  The time scale based
on fossils was built BY GEOLOGISTS WHO WERE CREATIONISTS.  Since 1840,
many details have been filled in, but the basic sequence has remained
unchanged."    [_Science_on_Trial_, D. Futuyma, p. 180]

	"Creationists claim that there is no objective way to determine
the age of rocks.  In _Scientific_Creationism_, we read the following
extraordinary statements: 'Rocks are not dated radiometrically.  Many
people believe the age of rocks is determined by study of their radio-
active materials -- uranium, thorium, potassium, rubidium, etc. -- but
this is not so.  The obvious proof that this is not the way it is done
is the fact that the geological column and approximate ages of all the
fossil-bearing strata were worked out long before anyone ever heard or
thought about radioactive dating.' [19]  So scientific creationism teaches
that the fact that early estimates of the age of rocks are supported by
a more accurate technique later somehow means that the technique is wrong!"
[_Science_on_Trial_, p. 182].

	[11] _Scientific_Creationism_, p. 95
	[19] _Scientific_Creationism_, p. 133

	(I'm sure to hear flames from creationists about "guilt by
association" for mentioning them and Ted together :-)).