Isochron dating methods
* 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?
Olson - Emeritus Professor of Geology, Whitworth College, Spokane, Washington. True or False: An overwhelming preponderance of “good” over “bad” dates is necessary for the acceptance of the reliability of a dating method on a given material? When apologists of isotopic-dating methods assert that all discrepant isotopic results have a rational geologic explanation that corresponds closely with the known geology of the region, are they speaking a partial truth, a trivial truth, or both? However, close examination of the isotopic dating methods instead shows a colossal manipulation of data covered by an elaborate Orwellian cover language. Can it be truthfully said that isotopic, biostratigraphic, and geomagnetic results independently corroborate each other? What about the claim that assessing the reliability of isotopic dates is a rigorous, scientific procedure? Once the radiometric dating methods are examined in their geologic context, it soon becomes obvious that the ages they indicate cannot be taken seriously. Or is each one of the systems force-fitted in order to compel its agreement with the other two systems? * Demonstrates how the highly touted Ar-Ar spectral method has not fulfilled its expectations. Is it fact, or uniformitarian wishful thinking, that there exists a tight consensus of dating results for the Phanerozoic geologic column?
Gives examples of dates rejected in spite of producing a flat Ar-Ar release pattern.
* Shows, via random-number analysis, how concordant results from different methods can frequently occur by chance, thus vitiating the argument that concordant results almost certainly are valid. Can it be shown that the above-mentioned compromise, far from winning unbelievers over, actually does nothing more than encourage unbelievers to continue their rejection of Biblical truth, and to use the compromise itself as a weapon against true Bible believers?
Is there any basis to the assertion of compromising evangelicals that questioning of such things as isotopic dating and the old earth brings discredit to the Christian faith, and hinders others from accepting the Gospel?
Coeditor of Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Radiocarbon and Tritium Dating. Karabinos Thomas Edvard Krogh - Director, Geochronology Laboratory, Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto.
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?
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?