Modern dating methods hristian online dating
When uniformitarians tell us that isotopic geochronology leads to testable hypotheses, what are they actually saying? Begging the Question: Where can we see the Law of Superposition employed to reject non-conforming dates, and then hear that isotopic-dating methods must be valid because they conform to their stratigraphic context? Gives examples of dates rejected in spite of producing a flat Ar-Ar release pattern. * 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”. * 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? Don’t lead-isochron dates from the earth, and from meteorites, themselves establish the earth’s age at 4.5 billion years? Fact or Wishful Thinking: Excess argon (in K-Ar and Ar-Ar dating) is a trivial phenomenon?
Does the geologic complexity of Precambrian terrains excuse the discordance of isotopic dates obtained from them? 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?