From: allenroy (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Jan 22 2003 - 19:12:06 EST
>1: There is a distinction to be understood between computing apparent
>ages according to certain assumptions from scientific quantification of
>an assortment of isotopes in rock, and the acceptance of those dates as
>valid for the rock involved.
Glenn Morton wrote:
Allen, the very basis of dating is stratigraphy which involves the
geometrical relationships between the various rock layers. Veins which
cross-cut other rocks are emplaced after the rocks were in place. With
sedimentary rocks, lacking geometrical evidence of overthrusting, the
topmost rock is the youngest. Radioactivity can go wrong and does. If the
dates violate the very laws of deposition, the laws of deposition take
precedence. It is logical to do it that way.
**[allen]Yes, Precisely; that is the heart of my thesis. Point 2 is
"The dating process of rock units is subjective even when radiometric
dates are available." Meaning subject to the laws of stratigraphy.
And, being "subject to" means that isotopic dates are rejected or
accepted depending upon other factors than the accuracy of the isotopic
dating methods. (Point 1) And the fact that isotopic dates for the
Uinkaret are rejected because they do not stratigraphically fit shows
Point 3, "If any rock unit is believed to be young, then any old
radiometric age is rejected, not as inaccurate, but as irrelevant to the
age of the rock."
I might make a note that the reason you know of bad dates is because the
scientists do publish bad dates, contrary to many claims by the YECs.
**red herring Whether scientists do or do not publish "bad" dates is
irrelevant to my thesis. Whether YECs claim that or not is also
irrelevant to my thesis.
> I don't
>know of any Creationary scientist who quarrels over the methodology,
>accuracy and precision with which isotopes are measured and ages
>computed. Most have, however, focused on the validity of assumptions of
If they accept the validity of the measurements, then I would like to see a
YEC explanation for why the ratios of various isotopes vary systematically
with the stratigraphic position of the rock. Even when a young-earther goes
through the literature looking for bad dates, one can still see this
relationship. Isotope percentages vary according to the stratigraphic
relations of the rocks.
**I can do no better than Woodmorappe, 1999, "C. Stratigraphic Trends in
Isotopic Dates," in Chapter 3 "Bogus Arguments for the Overall Validity
of Isotopic Dating methods." in 'The Mythology of Modern Dating
Methods," pages 18-23
John Woodmorappe (1979) went through the scientific literature looking
for radioactive dates which are 20% too old or too young. He specifically
excluded from his search any date which matched the expected age. This
type of selective editing is exactly what Young earth Creationists charge
the Evolutionists with.
**red herring What Woodmorappe did or didn't do and why is irrelevant
to my thesis.
[the] Above the 350 dates [from woodmorappe] are plotted . A perfect
dating result should appear
on the line. Note that there are more dates under the line than above the
line. If radioactivity is producing dates which are too old, you would
expect that there would be more dates above the line than below the line.
What this proves is that if a radioactive date is wrong it is far more
likely to be too young than too old! Young earth creationists need the
dates to be too old if their viewpoint is correct.
What is your explanation? Chemically, why is this?
**First, your plot of computed verses expected ages illustrates Point 3
-- if an isotopic date fits the expected date it is accepted, if not, it
**Second, Creationists completely reject all isotopic dates, so it is
just as irrelevant for there to be too young of ages as too old of ages.
We don't need for isotopic dates to be young, we don't need them at
all--they are irrelevant.
>This comes to my point. Just because the process of radiometric dating
>is done with great precision and great care, that does not automatically
>mean that the results are going to be accepted as valid. ... In the
case of the
>Uinkaret/Cardenas igneous rock, non-scientifically acquired data
>actually takes precedence over the scientifically (technologically?)
>acquired radiometric data. It is strictly observation and logic (not
>scientific experiment) that shows that the Uinkaret must be younger than
>the Cardenas. This fact outweighs the scientific data acquired through
>the radiometric dating process.
Why is it Allen, that when YECs like you claim great successes, you never,
ever seem to acknowledge that someone has criticized the work you are
presenting? Why is it that YECs only ever present one side of the question.
You should be aware that Chris Stassen has written a critique of the methods
Austin used to date the uppermost lavas and documented how Austin rigged the
**I am fully aware of Stassen's article and as I noted in another reply
to this thread, Stassen's criticisms are bogus. I remember when Stassen
first wrote this article in part due to arguments we had been having on
T.O. I wasn't impressed then and I'm not impressed now. He created a
useless strawman [i.e. the rigged results] and appears to not have
carefully read Austin's Grand Canyon book.
Isochron methods apply to a single rock, or mineral in which
several isotopic ratios are determined for that SINGLE mineral. Austin, it
seems, used 4 different rocks from 4 different lava flows. This is not the
correct way to do isochron dating.
**As I noted elsewhere, the claim of the lava flows being non-cogentic
is not based on the isotopic data. But simply because they are separate
"Before the Grand Canyon Dating Project began, in his 1988 Impact article,
Austin admitted in print that the selected lava flows fell into two
different stratigraphic stages. That is, the very information which he used
to select the flows, also clearly indicates that they did not all occur at
the same time. In his subsequent book (Grand Canyon: Monument to
Catastrophe), Austin indicated that his five data points came from four
different lava flows plus an extracted "phenocryst" (large mineral which
likely formed in the magma chamber and was not molten in the lava flow). We
had known from the Impact articles that Austin's samples were not all
cogenetic; years later we find out by his own admission that no two of them
are so. " http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html#refaus88
**As I pointed out elsewhere, Austin's five data points were not taken
from Leeman, but were collected by Austin himself. Stassen is either
ill informed or deliberately misleading.
>So, Point 1 is: The acceptance or rejection of radiometrically acquired
>ages for rock depends upon factors other than the science/technology of
>radiometric dating. (The Uinkaret/Cardenas system is symptomatic of the
>entire radiometric dating scheme).
Point 1 through 3 should be the fact that YECs misrepresent things.
**You have given no evidence that I have misrepresented the evidence.
Lets see you take my arguments and expose them as illogical.
"I have been shown that, without Bible history, geology can prove nothing. Relics found in the earth do give evidence of a state of things differing in many respects from the present. But the time of their existence, and how long a period these things have been in the earth, are only to be understood by Bible history. It may be innocent to conjecture beyond Bible history, if our suppositions do not contradict the facts found in the sacred Scriptures. But when men leave the word of God in regard to the history of creation, and seek to account for God's creative works upon natural principles, they are upon a boundless ocean of uncertainty. Just how God accomplished the work of creation in six literal days, he has never revealed to mortals. His creative works are just as incomprehensible as his existence." Ellen Gould Harmon White, 1864
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jan 22 2003 - 19:11:51 EST