RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (202) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: AF Dave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis, Creation/Evolution Debate< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,05:33   

"REST ASSURED ... OUR BRIDGE IS SAFE!!  IT HAS ONLY BROKEN 4 OUT OF 20 TIMES THAT WE TESTED IT ... AND THE DRIVER RECOVERED FROM HIS INJURIES EVERY TIME!"

SUBTITLE:  JONF'S FLAWED LOGIC ON ARGON "DATING"

Austin and Snelling of ICR www.icr.org have done excellent work document the numerous problems with Argon "dating" of rocks.  Not only have they done extensive literature reviews which show numerous examples of excess Argon in historic lava flows.  They have also done their own experiments at Mt. Saint Helens and Mt. Ngauruhoe.

Their literature reviews and their own studies have shown that "excess Argon" is a significant problem and has been well documented.  "Excess Argon" violates the fundamental assumption of K-Ar and Ar-Ar dating which is that there is supposed to be ZERO Argon in the rocks when they are first formed.  This is obviously not the case when testing historic lava flows so there is now no basis for believing it is true for ancient flows.  JonF contends that Creationists have to show that ALL ancient flows contain excess Argon in order to invalidate the technique.  Of course, this is ludicrous and shows just how desperate Deep Time Defenders are.  For a technique to be trusted, it must be shown to be reliable 100% of the time.  Would you drive across a bridge that the engineers said was sound "except for those 4 out of 20 times that it broke when a truck went across it" ??  Go ahead, my friend.  If you are that stupid, I have a bridge I will SELL you for a really good price.  This is the exact situation we have with Argon dating and we are not just trusting Austin and Snelling (I know this is important to you becasue they are such "fraudsters").  This is also based upon the results of one of the leaders in the field, Dalrymple, who reported 20% (!;) of his  tests on historic flows had excess Argon.  Come on, guys, get a clue!  

JonF also complains about xenoliths in Snellings test.  First of all, the xenoliths amounted to less than 5% in virtually identical flows.  JonF must realize that his "xenolith horse" is dying, so he points out that the <5% xenolith figures apply to different flows than the ones Snelling tested.  Well, go look at the two charts, Jon.  They are virtually identical.  Secondly, Jon points out that anyone honestly trying to get an accurate date with Argon dating excludes xenoliths.  Fine.  Go tell that to all the geologists in the studies cited by Snelling.  You say they excluded xenoliths?  OK.  Fine.  They still got "excess Argon" and thus bogus dates.  Your "xenolith horse" is dead.

Remember also that Snelling was not trying to get an "accurate date" because he's smart enough to know this is not possible with Argon "dating."  All he's trying to do is confirm with his own experiment what has been shown now for many years in the literature:  that excess Argon is the "Achilles heel" of Argon dating.  Do you understand what that means?  It means that Argon "dating" is like a chain with at least one broken link.  Do you know how useful a chain with a broken link is?  It's completely useless.  For the method to be trusted, it needs to be shown that it is NEVER in error.

Add to this the fact that all the Argon dates out there have to be "confirmed" with other methods.  Why?  Because of excess Argon, Argon loss, inheritance, mixing, etc.  JonF says that Argon loss doesn't help the creationists, but he is wrong again.  Of course it does simply because it invalidates the technique in yet another way.  Excess Argon invalidates the technique because it violates the fundamental assumption of ZERO Argon when the rock is formed.  But Argon loss makes the rock appear younger than the "actual age."  This also has been well documented in the literature and by the ICR RATE Group and even acknowledged by the late, great JonF himself (well, at least he acknowledged that Argon dating has to be cross-checked ... dunno if we'll ever get him to admit that Argon dating is therefore wrong).  

Of course, the question remains ... what is the Actual Age of any rock?  This is of course the million dollar question.  Eric has asked me how I would date the layers of the Grand Staircase.  Good question.  I'm not quite ready to give you my answer because I want to first of all show that all the "radiometric dating methods" out there are invalid.  

I, at least, have satisfied myself that the most common method for dating rocks--Argon dating is ...

... BALONEY!

Again, if it is TRUTH you are interested in, here is the  link which will get you all the relevant Snelling and Austin papers ...

http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_papers/

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
  6047 replies since May 01 2006,03:19 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (202) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]