Talk:Isochron dating

Challenge to RATE re Isochron Dating
The following is an evolutionist response to a statement that I made on another forum, to the effect that the RATE group had shown that isochron dating does not necessarily show an old earth: Oh dearie me. The RATE group anomalies are produced by flawed experimental data. Isochron measurement requires that the rock samples are cogenetic (formed at the same time from a common pool of material within which the isotopes and elements are relatively homogenous). This was never done by RATE. For example, RATE geologist Steve Austin has stated (Austin, Steven A., ed., 1994. Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe) that the samples he took came from four different lava flows and an extracted phenocryst. Austin knows he will get the wrong results this way. In Austin, Steven A., 1988. "Grand Canyon lava flows: A survey of isotope dating methods," in Impact #178, he mentions that this kind of false isochron is well known and cites (Faure, Gunter, 1986. Principles of Isotope Geology, Second Edition. New York: John Wiley and Sons pp 145-147) on the matter. But truth is not the objective of these creationist groups. They generate propaganda in the form of pseudo-scientific articles that fool the layman into thinking that there is something suspect. To understand what is going on requires an in-depth understanding of the science that most people do not have. Wanted: an appropriate counter-response.--TemlakosTalk 17:28, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Haven't we already answered this in the Index? The samples from the Grand Canyon had all phenocrysts removed from them at labs. If this guy had the time to even READ RATE's and Austin's work, he would know that they both took measures to make sure they meet requirements.

This guys says

"Isochron measurement requires that the rock samples are cogenetic (formed at the same time from a common pool of material within which the isotopes and elements are relatively homogenous)."

This guy is a liar and clearly hasn't even read the actual documents. They WERE homogenous.--Nlawrence 18:11, 14 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Well, I thought that this other correspondent was missing something. But, because I am not as conversant with radiometric dating as are the members of the RATE group, I needed some help with it. If you could tell me exactly which claim is involved, I'd appreciate it--just as I much appreciate your insight.--TemlakosTalk 18:51, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Here they are... Isochron date of young Grand Canyon lava is excessively old

K-Ar dates of 1986 dacite from Mount St. Helens are very old

Isochron dating gives unreliable results --Nlawrence 20:07, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

New paragraph
Looks good John Baab, I had originally expanded that first paragraph, but how you have it now, it flows very nicely. --Tony Sommer 00:43, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

I'm glad the teamwork idea of creation wiki is working, and I am very glad that people like you put worthwhile material together in the first place. I'm afraid that it is easier to edit or criticize than to get something on paper, and I do not want to get carried away. Keep up the good work. John Baab 12:00, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
 * I hear ya man! Now, you keep up the good work as well! :) --Tony Sommer 15:59, 11 July 2007 (EDT)