Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution

[Rían]

Yes, the subject came up again while we were talking over your ideas on that thread, because the idea of a creator came up.

Also on that thread, I asked GrayMouser if he had seen my analysis of his objection to the incorrect dating of the Mt. St. Helens rock, and that should be on this thread, too. Instead of posting a link, I think I'll just move the whole post over here, since it's easier than going to a link. The original point that I brought up was that a scientist had taken a rock with a known age and sent it to a dating lab, and the lab said the rock was from between 250,000 and 1 million years old. The rock was actually 16 years old (it came from the Mt. St. Helens eruption.) We talked a bit, then it came to this part. First I quoted GrayMouser, then I answered his question.

by GrayMouser
If he was trying to challenge the dating method, then why didn't he send it to a lab that claimed to be able to date it more accurately, rather than one that had already informed him that they couldn't?

A few weeks ago I helped a friend take a truckload of scrap metal to a junkyard- after we had weighed the load, I happened to be standing on the truck scale, which showed me to be weighing 400 lbs. ( not true, I hasten to add), because the scale was not geared for such light weights.

Should I have sent them an air-mail to weigh, and then claim their scales were worthless because they couldn't give me an accurate reading?

There is one (at least) difference here, GM - and it's a HUGE one - your weight CAN be measured accurately. The correct procedure would be to find a small enough scale range so that you will "top out", then go up one range until you find one that you are somewhere at the middle. That will be your weight. You can also cross-verify it several ways that are ALSO not dependant upon an INITIAL ESTIMATE being correct. There IS a scientific way to find out your weight - and the correct procedure is NOT to stand on a truck scale, and the correct answer, given the correct procedure, does NOT depend upon a correct estimate. I"m a terrible estimator - say that I look at you and say I think you're 250 pounds. Then if we follow the correct procedure, we will find out your real weight, and it doesn't matter if my initial estimate was right or not! All it means is that I would use a few more scales until I found one that you "topped out" with. It will have NO influence on the final answer.

However, the standard procedure for dating rocks DOES utterly and completely depend upon an initially correct estimate, which may very well be WRONG. This was clearly shown in the Mt. St. Helens rock case.

Do you still have no problem with this? Not in the least? GM, you've always seemed intellectually honest. Can you honestly say that you still have no intellectual problem with this dependence upon an initial estimate being correct?