In the last several threads about radiometric dating, I have seen one or two references to correlations among various radiometric ages (for the same sample I presume).
A common claim among creationists' material is that, in order to be radiometrically dated, a rock sample must include information such as what stratigraphic position was the rock, what fossils were near it, what age does the one submitting the sample expect it be, etc.
Of course, this implies that there is NO true correlation among radiometric data and that correlations are merely forced somehow...not necessarily on a conscious level...but rather the product of deeply ingrained and systemic circular reasoning.
I would like see not only this creationist argument discussed but also the issue of correlation among radiometric dates in general.
Thanks,
--TheLit
This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 03-26-2005 02:58 AM
™ Version 4.2