Okay to all Creationist: Here's some things for you to consider

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
--John G. Funkhouser and John J. Naughton, "Radiogenic Helium and Argon in Ultramafic Inclusions from Hawaii," Journal of Geophysical Research

​

This quote is a bit old, and some later datings give correct dates

---

"A bit old?" Can't you be a little more specific? Really if this is an example of the accuracy of your research, how do we know that any of the dates you give us are accurate?

quote:

---

Thus the large majority of historic lava flows that have been studied either give correct ages, as expected, or have quantities of excess radiogenic 40Ar that would be insignificant in all but the youngest rocks. The 40Ar/39Ar technique, which is now used instead of K-Ar methods in most studies, has the capability of automatically detecting, and in many instances correcting for, the presence of excess 40Ar, should it be present.

---

--G. Brent Dalrymplebut it does illustrate the problems of radiometric dating.[/quote]Are you now going to illustrate some of the problems of setting tolerances in the space shuttle and tell us that we should abandon the program because there are problems?

quote:

---

Situations for which we have both the carbon-14 and potassium-argon ages for the same event usually indicate that the potassium-argon `clock’ did not get set back to zero. Trees buried in an eruption of Mount Rangotito in the Auckland Bay area of New Zealand provide a prime example. The carbon-14 age of the buried trees is only 225 years, but some of the overlying volcanic material has a 465,000-year potassium-argon age.

​

[Harold Coffin, Origin by Design, page 400.]

---

This is fine, but why doesn't Coffin give you the original researcher's explanation? Why do you permit yourself to only read the creationist analysis? You are an unwitting accomplice in your own deception here, blitz.

quote:

---

A few years ago I took a course in the "Evolution of Desert Environments". We were standing on the Simi Volcanic flow, about 80 miles south of the south end of Death Valley. The instructor was a well known geologist and evolutionist from Cal. State Long Beach. He told us that the upper end of the flow was dated at 100,000 years, the middle of the flow was dated at 50,000 years, and the toe of the flow was dated at 20,000 years. He then noted that the whole flow probably occured and solidified (the surface at least) within weeks. He then said, based on his observation of the rates of evolution of desert environments he thought the flow was less than 10,000 years of age. He then said "radiometric dating is the cornerstone of modern historical geology and we get this kind of variation?" Clearly he was not happy with the published dates on the Simi flow.

---

Again, a nice story, but several important fact are bein left out. What was the purpose of the original analyses? What was the original researcher's explanation of the results? What was the method of analysis? You need to be more critical in your scientific analysis.

quote:

---

He was also not happy with the published dates on the flows in the Nevada Atomic Bomb Test site where one of the volcanic flows showed a reversal of isotope ratios and gave a value of 20,000 years in the future! These data were, in fact, published in Science magazine in about November of 1988. Please note, these were not MY ideas but the statements of a convinced, tenured, evolutionary geologist who apparently really wanted to beleive in the credibility of radiometric dating. I am just reporting what HE said!

---

You mean discordant dates were actually published? I thought that didn't happen! And no, you are not reporting what the geologist said. I see no quotes, I see no attempt at an explanation. I see only some raw data which undoubtedly was part of a much larger data set and part of a study. What were the results of that study?I dare say that you derived this story from a creationist source that abstracted information in such a way as to advance its own agenda of deceiving you.