Wheaton Christian College teaches evolution

Sauron · #71 14th June 2002, 10:45 PM

Originally posted by randman
[b]Well, anyone that posts anything from the garbage site Talkorigins, I just pass over the post. That site is pure hype and propaganda.

Except that, for all your noise and bluster, you have utterly failed to refute the arguments posted there. Nor have you been able to demonstrate "hype" or "propaganda".

Hint: not *liking* an argument is not the same as refuting it.

LiveFreeOrDie · #72 23rd June 2002, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by npetreley

You should take that up with "ardipithecus", who says:

"This proof does depend on one assumption that I have not mentioned so far. It assumes that every part of the rock when formed the radio [sic] of the radioactive daughter to the non-radioactive isotope of the same element as the daughter is the same."

Duh Nick. The "parent" and the "non-radioactive isotope of the daughter" are not the same thing. There are three isotopes involved in radiometric dating: an unstable parent P, its decay product D, and a stable isotope of D we can call D'. For radiometric dating, none of the initial ratios needs to be known. The only assumption is that the ratio of D/D' was homogeneous throughout the rock. Given that there is no way to differentiate between the two chemically or physically outside of a particle accelerator, this is a reasonably sound assumption.