Joined: April 2006
XENOLITHS OR NO XENOLITHS, ARGON DATING IS UNRELIABLE ... MAKE THAT HORRIBLY UNRELIABLE
JonF wants to make a big deal out of xenoliths ... fine ... make a big deal out of them ...
In fact, you could even forget about Snelling's own experiments completely and guess what you would have ...
Wildly unreliable Argon dating
It is my understanding that Dalrymple was one of the leading popularizers of K-Ar dating with his 1969 book on the topic ...
[BOOK] Potassium-argon dating
GB Dalrymple, MA Lanphere - 1969 - Freeman
It is interesting to note the increase in popularity of the method beginning in the 50's and continuing to the present from the Google Scholar searches below. I suppose this confirms Snelling's statement that continues to remain the most popular dating method. [RATE Book 1, p.37] Why? Because it's cheap I guess. I think JonF says Snelling is wrong about this too, but I'm not seeing that, Jon. From the data below, I see 2600 search returns for K-Ar vs. 391, 299, and 1150 for Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, and Pb-Pb respectively. Maybe you could back up your statements with data?
|Results 1 - 10 of about 45 for potassium argon dates 1941-1950|
Results 1 - 10 of about 164 for potassium argon dates 1951-1960
Results 1 - 10 of about 578 for potassium argon dates 1961-1970
Results 1 - 10 of about 840 for potassium argon dates 1971-1980
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,260 for potassium argon dates 1981-1990
Results 1 - 10 of about 2,600 for potassium argon dates 1991-2000
Results 1 - 10 of about 2,930 for potassium argon dates 2001-2006
Results 1 - 10 of about 391 for rubidium strontium dates 1991-2000
Results 1 - 10 of about 299 for samarium neodymium dates 1991-2000
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,150 for Pb-Pb dates 1991-2000
Also, I'm not sure where JonF gets his idea that K-Ar dating was popular in the 40's, but then, I'm not sure where JonF gets lots of his ideas ... maybe he could fill me in.
Dalrymple was a big promoter of Argon dating and wrote a book on the subject in 1969. He tested 26 historic flows in the same year and found 20% of them to have "excess Argon." In spite of this, he was still promoting Argon dating with his statement that Argon atoms are "like a bird in a cage." [Dalrymple, 1991, p.91] Yeah, some cage! ... read [Plummer and McGeary, 1996, p. 170] to see how easily that "bird" can fly right out of (or into) that cage! Then of course, we have Mr. Bird-in-the-Cage man himself throwing out 60 published K-Ar dates in the western Grand Canyon [Dalrymple and Hamblin, 1998]. JonF waves his hands wildly and says "Look! He excluded xenoliths!" OK. Great. What's your point? So he excluded xenoliths and threw out 60 dates anyway. That establishes MY point, not yours.
Then the question arises ... "How do we determine if a particluar Argon "date" is "right?" Hmmmm ... good question. The answer of course, although no one here will admit it, is that it agrees with the "accepted bio-stratigraphical timescale." To put it in laymen's terms, geologists go out and date rocks for which they already have a pre-conceived idea of what the "ages" are. They throw out the "ages" that don't agree with this pre-conception and keep the ones that do. This is the "yardstick" for determining if a "date" is "right" or not. Don't think they throw out dates they don't like? Well you are mistaken as I have now shown you on the KBS Tuff and the example of Dalrymple and Hamblin . I'm sure I could spend a great deal of time and show you many, many more.
But again, my time is not well spent trying to convince skeptics of anything. My time is best spent subjecting the statements of creationist scientists to the rigors of skepticism and seeing if they survive. I have now done that with Snelling's statements on Argon dating from two of his papers and he has passed the "Skeptic Test" with flying colors! For those of you that have a shred of honesty left in your body, I would suggest that you buy or borrow the two RATE Books from ICR and read them for yourselves. On the other hand, if you are comfortable in the "Fog of Deep Time" then don't bother.
And if you think that the above mentioned problems with Argon dating are not really a problem, then you should be ashamed to call yourself a scientist. Not too many people I know want to drive across the Paseo bridge in KC that Crabby mentioned and it has NEVER dropped a car into the river. It's just been suspect. Imagine how much traffic it would get if it had dropped cars into the river in 4 out of the last 20 years! That's the situation we have with Argon dating. Actually, if the truth were known, the percentage would be much higher. Read the RATE Book Vol 2 and you will see this.
So, my friends, I have now done a thorough job of giving you a glimpse into the "rest of the story" about Argon dating. And I have shown you that in spite of this, Argon dating continues to be wildly popular as Snelling has pointed out. So tomorrow we will begin looking at some of the other popular dating methods. Surely they will "save the day" for Deep Timers, right?
I wish I had time to list some Founding Father quotes, but I'm out of time. I did notice an interesting post over on the "Necessary Education needed to debate" thread ...
Have to agree with you there. The history of the Christian church (substitute the term Catholic for Christian for most of that time) is quite dismal. What I find interesting, however, is that a small minority of people who wanted to fix the problems have always been there and their influence has been astounding. Martin Luther is a perfect case in point. Here you have a guy who sees all the crap that Scary Facts is talking about and he's fed up. So what does he do? He risks his life and posts the 95 theses. Rome goes ballistic and tries to fry him (literally). The only thing that saves his skin is his friends in high places. He and some other leaders put their necks on the line in taking their stand for rightness and freedom and the world has never been the same since. The unprecedented freedom in England and subsequently in America is a direct result of Martin Luther and the Reformation which he started. Many posters here discount this and point to the Enlightenment as the wellspring of American freedoms. But this is only partially correct. It is true that the founders of America were "enlightened" to the errors of the authoritarian church hierarchies of Europe, but it is a serious mistake to overlook their committment to the fundamentals of Christianity and the Scriptures and there is a massive body of original writings which support the fact that America was most definitely founded as a Protestant Christian nation--not an authoritarian one as some here like to say that the GWB's of the world want, but a definitely Christian, Bible promoting one.
|I don’t know of a Christian out there—including me—who doesn’t believe “yeah, I agree. There are stupid (or bigoted, or intolerant, or illogical) Christians out there. But I’m not like that.”|
Of course, we can’t all be right. I suspect that at one time or another I have been all of those things. (Heck, there was that night in Phoenix when I was ALL of those, but I digress…)
Humans act out. Christians are no exception. And I’m not going to use that bumper sticker excuse for bad behavior: “Christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven”
But here’s the rub I have been dealing with for the last several years: What does a 21st century Christian look like? How would a Christian live in a 21st century western culture?
It seems to me that non-Christians might be the best people to ask—Christians have waaaaayyyyy too many “oughts” to get an honest answer and the non-Christians seem to have a better picture of the ways real Christ-ies act.
Christianity doesn’t have a very illustrious history (when looked at objectively.) The billion or so people who currently profess the faith have far too few notable exceptions to societal norms. In some areas Christian performance is below societal norms.
|I suspect there are many Christians who have lurked over the AFDave thread and have had some of the same reactions I have—that much of what our “brothers and sisters in Christ” are telling us are obvious lies. Many of the lurkers won’t ever post here. It’s a little intimidating for the non-scientist.|
I am extremely interested to know what things you think are "lies." What are your top five "Christian lies?" I would be interested in others responding to this question also.
|If there is one thing I respect about AFDave is his courage to take a stand for what he believes. Sure, you guys fed him his balls with gravy, but he at least put it out there. I’m actually thankful he did that. The thread is teaching me a ton.|
I guess the point here is that there are Christians out there who are trying not to be ignorant church-bots. We want to learn the truth—even if it challenges our long-held beliefs. Any god who is scared of truth isn’t God*.
(*note the effective use of capitalization)
Hmmmm ... a compliment! He respects my courage.
Eric, thanks for reposting my Tyre argument for 7P ... i hope your bill of secretarial services is not too high! I had forgotten what I said, but now that you showed me, I like it! Now, "oldman," tell me how a Permalink would help me refer back to Eric's repost of my Tyre quote.
I'm not sure what "oldman" is talking about that I deleted some Permalinks. I have never even used one ... how would I even know how to delete one? I suppose I will read up on them, though. It would be nice to get some favorite links organized. I do plan on using this info in the future. And for the umpteenth time, yes, my friends at church know about this site. None of them are "forum posters" though so they don't post. [Permalink needed so as not to have to keep saying this] I think it's kinda funny that you all somehow think I would be embarrassed if they saw the stuff here. You must really not understand my fellow church goers too well. Actually, what they would be embarrassed by is all the foul language. They already have a low opinion of evolutionists ... they would really have a low opinion of them if they saw this thread.
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.