Isochron dating methods doug bruce dating june cleaver
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?
Wiley Online Library requires cookies for authentication and use of other site features; therefore, cookies must be enabled to browse the site.
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?
If we point out that uniformitarian geochronologists often don’t publish discrepant dates, are we thereby accusing them of being dishonest?
Olson - Emeritus Professor of Geology, Whitworth College, Spokane, Washington.* 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? * 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?