Originally posted by edge:
Originally posted by Thunderbird:
The analysis was done by Dr. Steve Austin. At this point, I
have no reason to believe, he or Snelling are fraudulent, since
I've not read of the reasons this claim is being made.
Ah, but we do have evidence that Steve Austin has committed fraud. Read this reference, specifically the Introductory Lecture.
I didn't see any evidence of fraud in the lecture. Fraud implies
that he intended to deceive. His interpretation of geological
data may have been disputed, but that doesn't constitute fraud.
It was not established that xenoliths were captured by his sample. He took steps to prevent them from being used by manually selecting rocks that didn't appear to be xenoliths and checking the rocks under the microscope for microscopic xenoliths.
But, if someone's agenda is to 'prove' that radiometric dating was invalid, would you trust them to do the sampling? You should learn to critically analyze your sources.
I don't think you can assume that someones viewpoint makes them
untrustworthy or imcomptent and that they would intentionally
decieve people by collecting deceptive samples.
The very purpose of the Austin experiment was to look at the
K-Ar dating method in a critical light and to examine
this question; Is this method accurate?
The method is based on a scientific principle, but also there
are assumptions made so it probably makes since to calibrate
the method to rocks of a known historical age and that was
the reason for testing the young rocks.
Austin also references a 1969 Dalrymple study that shows inaccurate
results for rocks at historically active volcanos.
The method has been shown to inaccurate. If the K-Ar method doesn't work or is unreliable on rocks of a known age, then why go ahead and use it on rocks on a unknown age.
Recently, a new argon method is being used. If scientists are replacing K-Ar method that suggests it is no longer accepted as accurate. What then happens to the all data that resulted from
previous K-Ar calculations? Will it be revised to reflect a newer
The young rock should not have a small amount of Argon in it.
Why not? Should they also not have small amounts of fluorine? Do you really understand geochemistry and radiometric dating?
Instead, it should have next to nil or a trace amount in order for the method to be accurate.
Not at all. Sometimes it is possible to measure the original content of the sample. In other methods, the actual amount of daughter nuclides does not affect the date. In others, it is a safe assumption that there was no daughter in the sample at the time of formation. [/B]
The point is that Austin was testing a method that makes the assumption that these igneous rocks didn't have any Argon in them.
That is what was assumed in the formula by others who used the