To: All Msg #215, May0493 04:45AM Subject: Dalrymple's work (was: +quot;Re: The obvious is

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

From: Chris Stassen To: All Msg #215, May-04-93 04:45AM Subject: Dalrymple's work (was: "Re: The obvious is not politically cor Organization: The Lion's Den - Newark, Ohio From: stassen@alc-ohio.alc.com (Chris Stassen) Message-ID: <1993May4.124518.9183@alc-ohio.alc.com> Reply-To: stassen@alc.com Newsgroups: talk.origins Rob Derrick wrote: > Brent Dalrymple could recite, on cue, a litany of evidence that would, and > did, silence the entire TAE attack on dating techniques. [...] In response, Richard Schumacher and Rich Fox ask for the metioned piece via Email or posting. I don't think that it is available in that format. That is, I suspect that Rob is referring to Dalrymple's testimony at the Arkansas Trial of Act 590. (References [3] and [4] have content similar to that requested -- see below.) Michael Ruse, also present at the trial, says of Dalrymple: "Rounding out the science witnesses was G. Brent Dalrymple of the U.S. Geological Survey. He gave quite a brilliant disquisition on methods of dating the earth. One would not think that such a topic could be all that intrinsically interesting, but Dalrymple gave this assumption the total lie. He held us absolutely spellbound as he talked of various dating techniques and how geologists compensate for weaknesses in one direction by strengths from another. My sense was that Dalrymple was so good and so firm that he rather broke the back of the State's case. He had checked all of the Creationist arguments, and showed in devastating detail the trail of misquotations, computational errors, out-of-date references, and sheer blind stupidity which allows the Creationists to assign the earth an age of 6000 years." (Michael Ruse, 1984. "A Philosopher's Day in Court", in _Science and Creationism_, edited by Ashley Montagu. New York, Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-503253-5. pp. 334-335.) (Note: a portion of this quotation is soon to appear in a creationist posting. It will read, "Dalrymple gave the total lie." :-/ ) Several years ago I called the court in an attempt to get some of the transcripts from the above-mentioned trial. They must be available, for several authors have made inclusions from them. However, I was not able to get anywhere, and the price for a relatively complete set would have run into the hundreds of dollars. All is not lost, though. Dalrymple has written several excellent works for the layman on isotope dating, creationist criticisms of isotope dating, and/or creationist "dating" methods. They are all very informative and well-referenced, forming an excellent starting point for in-depth research. (The latter would not be true of the court transcripts.) A list of those that I have at hand follows, with short reviews: [1] Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1992. "Some Comments and Observations on Steven Austin's ``Grand Canyon Dating Project''. Unpublished, but available from the author. 8 pp. This is a short commentary on a single criticism of isotope dating (a relatively recent claim made by the ICR). [2] Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1991. _The Age of the Earth_. California, Stanford University Press. ISBN 0-8047-1569-6. 474 pp. This title isn't aimed at responding to creationist arguments, so it doesn't discuss either creationist "dating" methods or creationist criticisms of isotope dating. It does have an excellent introduction to dating methods and several categories of evidence for the age of the earth. [3] Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1986. _Radiometric Dating, Geologic Time, And The Age Of The Earth: A reply to "Scientific" Creationism_. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report number 86-110. 76 pp. A paper of reasonable length which introduces isotope dating methods, discusses creationist criticism of the same, and covers several creationist "dating methods." If you are only going to get one work from this list, this is the one to get. (Copies of this are available from the Government Printing Office for about $15, or from netter Wesley Elsberry for much less.) [4] Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1984. "How Old Is the Earth? A Reply to ``Scientific Creationism''" in _Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division of the AAAS_ Vol. 1 Part 3, pp. 66-131 This is similar to the 1986 paper above, both in length and in content. The main difference is that the introduction to isotope dating methods is much abbreviated, and more space is spent on creationist criticisms of isotope dating and creationist "dating" methods. [5] Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1983. "Can the Earth be Dated from Decay of Its Magnetic Field?" in _Journal of Geologic Education_ 31:124-133 A relatively long discussion of Thomas Barnes' claims for magnetic field decay. [6] Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1982. "Radiometric dating and the age of the earth: a reply to scientific creationism" in _Federation Proceedings_ 42(13):3033-3038 A short paper summarizing a few lines of evidence for the age of the earth and discussing problems with a few creationist "dating methods" (magnetic field decay and moon dust). Contains a subset of the material in [3] and [4]. --

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank