Radiometric Dating and the Geologic Column: A Critique

Are you kidding me?You made a good show of having a bit more geologic knowledge than most YECs, so this bit of ignorance comes as a surprise. Are you the same person?This little analysis on your part is so flawed and ridiculous I have to wonder if you know ANYTHING about geology. Either that or you've convinced yourself the posters here are as ignorant or more ignorant than you of geologic processes. Unfortunately for you that is not the case and so it's rather annoying to have to read such patronizing nonsense.All you've done above is point out large unconformities. Big deal! They are found everywhere in the rock record and a good geologist can explain their significance. Look around you. Some areas are being eroded and that eroded material is being deposited. It doesn't take a Ph.D. to figure out what unconformities are. There has been no "complete dismissal" of your 'facts.' People have asked you for clarifications and so far you have not done so. The only person dismissing anything (EVERYTHING!) is you - most likely because you are incapable of answering the questions put to you.Additionally, you haven't undermined anything except your own credibility by posting the driveling nonsense found in your latest post.This message has been edited by roxrkool, 01-01-2005 14:03 AMedited for clarity and redundancyThis message has been edited by roxrkool, 01-02-2005 01:45 AM

quote:

---

Umm, did you ever take a geology course? Do you think there is ANYWHERE in geology that we say all geological periods must be represented in any single location? In other words, Woody is creating a strawman argument and bashing it to pieces, then thumping his chest. And guess who is out there cheering him on?

---

This sort of thing might be the stupidest argument of the YECs. No one in their right mind would expect any spot on Earth to have continually have had strata deposited on it for 4.5 billion years let alone many of them.

JonF has clearly shown that don't understand the Borg et al study or at the very minimum the parts which he quoted. Of course you can begin to redeem yourself by explaining what you think the signicance of the upper and lower intercepts in concordia-discordia dating is. If you understand what is going on, that would be a trivial question. Do understand that concordia-discordia dating is not an isochron method? There are no isochron in concordia-discordia dating unless you are using "isochron" as another word for "line" which is simply misusing the term.You really should consider reading, at a very minimum chapter 3 of Dalrymple's The Age of the Earth for an explanation. It really is a shame that Talk.Origins does not have an FAQ on that sort of dating (or for that matter argon-argon). I have prepared a detailed response to this claim that these gaps are special pleadings instead of observed reality and put it into the proposed new topics since it brings to a subject other than radiometric dating, but rather to relative dating...{Edited in: The topic was approved: the thread is Unconformities and the age of the Earth: Challenge to Anti-Climacus and other YECs and was placed in the Geology and the Great Flood forum.}This message has been edited by Harlequin, 01-02-2005 15:13 AM

One of these days ...I actually sat down last week and did the code to generate an animated GIF of a rock aging on a concordia-discordai diagram, in the same vein as my animeted isochron.

I was doing a little digging, and found that the Borg et al paper we have been discussing is actually a preliminary result; there's much more data and discussion in Constraints on the petrogenesis of Martian meteorites from the Rb-Sr and Sm-Nd isotopic systematics of the lherzolitic shergottites ALH77005 and LEW88516, and there's a nice (and very long ... 60 pages) review article at AGES AND GEOLOGIC HISTORIES OF MARTIAN METEORITES.I can't resist adding a little more response: You have demonstrated nothing. You've made a lot of claims, but you have provided no support for those claims other than your personal inability to conceive the results being correct. To demonstrate anything, you need to discuss the mainstream explanation and maybe some other alternate explanations, the evidence and reasoning that leads you to believe your interpretation is correct, and point out exactly how the mainstream explanation is not consistent with accepted principles or knowledge of science. You haven't even made an attempt.

Dr Cresswell gave you a way to diagnose geochronologist fraud. I know you have a lot to read and respond to but why have you ignored this important point!? If you or Woodmorappe really wanted to catch geochronologists with their proverbial pants down then all you would have to do is run the statistics. If everything looks good then you have a situation where either they are right or that the geochronologists are not only throwing out data but carefully inserting data to make the statistics look good.Yes everyone is asking you for proof of this widespread fraud but someone actually handed you a way to go about finding it!Please acknowledge that you are reading these posts at least. A simple sentence showing that you know of the existence of mathematical forensics would be fine for starters. Either that or please stop whining about not being able to find evidence of fraud when you haven't even tried.This message has been edited by Jazzns, 01-03-2005 12:38 AM

Hi Anti-Climacus,You've already drawn a number of responses, some lengthy, so I'll be brief. A rationalization is when one says, "We have a drought because the sun god is angry." An explanation is when one says, "We have a drought because the upper jet stream is maintaining a pattern which brings in dry air from the north, and until that track changes the drought will likely continue." The rationalization has no evidence. The explanation has plenty of evidence in the form of weather maps and data.Another example of a legitimate explanation: "The reconstruction of the space shuttle Columbia will be extremely difficult because of the difficulty of finding and identifying the pieces of wreckage strewn across a 500 mile long and 10 mile wide landscape."Explaining the difficulties of dating rock that has been through cataclysmic episodes is not rationalizing. The explanations may be wrong, but they are not rationalizations. You cannot dismiss explanations that are based upon evidence by simply labeling them rationalizations. You must instead deal with the evidence behind the explanations.Your Message 102 repeats in greater detail, and with some additions, the same claims you made in Message 60, but it addresses none of the responses to Message 60. Understood. But instead of replying directly to even a single point, you've instead taken your response as an opportunity to reexplain your position from scratch. That isn't necessary. The respondents appear to have a fairly clear understanding of your position and have posted some very specific objections. Please address at least some of the specific objections raised in these messages in your next post: Again, there is no need to respond to everyone, we understand that you're only one person. But, as Jazzns says in Message 111, "Please acknowledge that you are reading these posts at least." When you address none of the specific objections and quote nothing from anyone's post, one starts to wonder.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Can we now assume that Anti-Climacus has ran away?