Joined: Sep. 2006
|Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 02 2006,00:41)|
|Mike, I noticed that in your summary which Dave claims he doesn't disagree with, you told him that since he doesn't disagree with your summary, he should instead argue radioactive decay rates. But now he's conceded that radioactive decay rates are accurate as well.|
Seems like Dave's sealed off all his own escape routes. No doubt he'll try to unlock those doors, so I suggest you don't let him try the radioactive-decay-rates door unless and until he explains why he was wrong when he said he didn't have a problem with your isochron summary.
I can't compete with you, deadman, and JonF when it comes to radiometric dating methodologies, but at least I can try to keep Dave honest (or at least point out where he's being dishonest, which is most of the time).
I'm trying to give AFDave a little slack (enough rope to.... well... you get the picture). He's not in a corner with his argument yet. I see his "mixing lines/Deep Time" position this way,
Arguing about how "all Isochrons are (insert favorite non-commital phrase here) mixing lines..." doesn't say anything about time or ages or "millionofyearsism". It only argues against the physical process of sampling and testing rocks. All you have to show is that a properly identified sample (whole rock or mineral) can result in a linear data set. I read the tripe from Arndts and Overn and saw through the logical flaws immediately without referencing talkorigins. Reading other smackdowns of this argument just reinforces how banal is the "mixing" argument.
(Deadman, read through that smackdown, if you haven't already, since it also addresses Humphry's excess Helium halucinations).
Just a reminder, I'm not skilled or detailed with the geology, but the base science that the Isochron method is built upon are used in other areas I am familiar with.
For decay rates, he only agreed that the measured values of decay are accurate. He didn't say or agree to anything about how to roll these values back in time so this isn't a Catch-22 statement yet. In fact I don't want to argue that point yet because I need a clear understanding about the present physics before I can show the past. I don't think Dave understands WHAT arguments are necessary to disprove how physics takes the present measured values of half-lives to validate past time measurements. His present earth changing events, from initial creation through to the flud, are not the correct arguments against the data. I don't think AIG or ICR are going to help him on this one with an easy C/P answer. AFDave will have to fly solo, and we know how skilled he is when that happens.