GodGutsGunsGibberish Alert.
steve-b-deranged-about-sarah gibberish Alert back at'cha
Treating any of this as a “science debate” only reinforces the false impression given by the Creationists that there is a legitimate scientific debate going on, with two equally valid sides.
There isn’t. This “fight” is a political fight dreamed up by an extremist crackpot minority of religious zealots.
Despite their arrogant claims to represent the “Christian point of view”, the creationists and their fundamentalist friends constitute a very tiny minority in mainstream religion. They are an abomination.
In essence, the fundamentalists and their creationist allies want to do for the United States what the fundamentalist Taliban did for Afghanistan and the Ayatollahs have done for Iran—they want to run the country in accordance with their interpretation of “God’s will”.
Every mainstream Christian denomination in the United States rejects the paranoid and ultra-literalist world-view of the creationists, and sees no conflict at all between Christian faith and modern science.
They should crawl back to their caves and huddle around their book burnings; they are the true enemy of Christianity.
Actually, the article is correct, as far as it goes. The radioactive dating method does in fact depend on an assumption concerning the initial concentration of isotopes in the item being dated.
The question is, then: how reliable are the assumptions being made? Can those assumptions be tested in any way?
The article of course doesn't dwell on that aspect of the problem ... the author would apparently have us believe that those assumptions are essentially unfounded.