Isochron dating methods

* Proves that discrepant and discordant dates are the RULE, not the exception. Results of dating methods typically fall in the multimillion-year to multibillion-year range. As a corollary to the previous question, would we not expect the results of the dating methods to consistently indicate essentially zero ages if the earth was only a few thousand years old? (That is, an overall older-to-younger progression of isotopic dates relative to biostratigraphy.) (pp. * Indicates why “good” dates don’t in themselves accredit the dating methods. Leaving aside the question of the validity or otherwise of the methodologies for a moment, do presumed reliability criteria even agree with each other in predicting which dating results will be reliable and which one will not? Does this prove that the correct ages of rocks are at least approximately in the millions to billions of years? Demonstrates how geologists commonly backpedal on opinions of which particular dates are supposedly valid. Practical geochronometry: Assuming for the sake of argument the validity of the “self-checking” methodologies, do we find that geochronologists at least agree among themselves on the reliability or unreliability of particular dating results? * Shows how “reliability criteria” are used inconsistently, and are even waived when the result fits the ruling theory. ) Scientific Fact or Scientific Folklore: Isotopic dates are unambiguously divisible into “credible” and “non-credible” categories?

For the longest time, we have all been taught that the great age of the earth and its rocks is an established fact. Fact or Fable: The presumed reliability of isotopic dates can be assessed objectively from analytic data, and independent of any uniformitarian geologic interpretations? * Shows how even low-temperature fluid processes can cause open systems in dates. Reality or Rhetoric: Isotopic-dating results are usually internally consistent? This casts serious doubt on the assumption that isotopic systems could remain closed for millions of years. Historically speaking, has the overall validity of the isotopic dating methods been established prior to their widespread usage, or have these absolute dating methods been accepted with little criticism as long as they produced results congenial to uniformitarian thought? * Examines U-Pb dating of zircons, showing the highly contradictory dates usually obtained. Even if most isotopic dates are bad, some (or many) are “eminently reasonable”. Proves the ad hoc nature of deciding which zircons are primary and which are xenocrysts. When apologists for radiometric dating assert that discrepant isotopic dating results are very rare overall (comparable perhaps to a few malfunctioning watches, or a few rotten apples), are they speaking the truth?

Leave a Reply