9) Re: Scientific Circles (Message 127):
Milton's point (page 47):
"Argon 40 is a very common isoptope. Argon is the 12th most abundant chemical element on Earth and more than 99 percent is argon 40.
There is no physical or chemical way to tell whether any given sample of argon 40 is the residue of radioactive decay or was present in the rocks when they formed. Moreover, as argon is an inert gas that will not react with any other element, its atoms will always be trapped in the crystal structures of minerals whether it is radiogenic in origin or not.
So, if radiogenic argon 40 is like "a bird in a cage", then it is a cage that already contains birds of the same feather, from which it is indistinguishable." END MILTON QUOTE.
The above evidence went completely unchallenged.
For from having gone unchallenged, I completely refuted it.
Let me repeat the two main points. The study did
not return datings of the
lavas that were all over the place: the lava was dated and duly returned a zero age date (correct given the age of the sample and the accuracy of the test). What it did do was produce datings for the
inclusions (unmelted rocks carried along with the lava) that were inconsistent with each other. Conclusion: as theory had predicted, inclusions cannot be used to date the underlying rock. Unfortunate, but no problem for radio-isotope dating.
However, that was not my main point.
This was that Milton misrepresented the study. In short, he lied about the results.
This was that had Milton read the study - or even read the
title of the study, he would have know this. He therefore could not make the claim that the study supported his conclusion that radio-isotope daing was unreliable, for the study came to almost the oppoiste conclusion - that it
was reliable, except in certain easily recognisable circumstances. So, if he had read the study he lied about its conclusions.
If he had not read the study, but merely did a typical creationists cut-and-paste, he lied by implication, because he would have had no way of knowing if the study supported or did not support his views.
It is this latter point that you have totally failed to address by merely restating your initial position.
For Whigs admit no force but argument.