Mike PSS
Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
AFDave,
Your assertion that | Quote (afdave @ Posted on Sep. 26 2006,09:50) | | If certain rocks are not qualified for RM dating, then how can we qualify ANY rock legitimately? We cannot claim to truly know the history of ANY rock. |
is funny in the extreme. I know that you tried this argument in the past and were smacked down. Are you now changing your Rb/Sr Isochron argument to the above position instead of what you argued three days ago? | Quote (AFDave @ Sep. 23 2006,09:16) | | 20) You have been shown how Isochron Dating was invented in an attempt to solve the problem of unknown initial conditions, but in the case of the whole rock isochron (used to be the most common), the diagrams can easily be interpreted as nothing more than mixing diagram--useless for assigning any real ages to rocks. |
.
My verbose prose on crystallization was only the beginning of the science lesson in showing you how Rb/Sr Isochron methods are valid. You haven't responded to my last question regarding Olivine and crystallization. Here it is again.
Do you agree that Olivine is formed according to the science of crystal formation?
We have a basis in understanding that we can agree upon and I'm trying to build upon this basis. | Quote (afdave @ Sep. 24 2006,07:09) | | In general, I (and every creationist I know) accept all science which involves repeatable, testable events. Crystal formation and many other phenomena fall into this category. |
From this beginning I intend on showing you how electrochemical selection will vary the Rb uptake in a crystal formed in an olivine melt and how this uptake variability results in the linear relation found on the Isochron graph.
Your cherry picking argument can only be applied to the global scale, not the local scale. You have to show that cherry picking a sample to fit the Rb/Sr testing method (remember, the rocks are chosen BEFORE they are tested so no age bias is introduced to the rock selection) somehow invalidates the results of the test.
AFDave, eventually the ony argument you will have left in this whole Isochron fiasco will be the "accellerated decay rate in the past" position. Why not skip all the pretense and start arguing this position. Here's the initial counter argument you will have to address in your first post about decay rates.
I look forward to another smack-down.
Mike PSS
|
