Geologists and dating (India Basins Half a Billion Years Older Than Thought)

From the National Geographic article: "Not as accurate" is quite an understatement for an error of nearly 100%. How were the basins originally dated?--Percy

As Joe said, the Williams reference is in the paper. Just click on the link he provided (Paleomagnetism and Detrital Zircon Geochronology of the Upper Vindhyan Sequence, Son Valley and Rajasthan, India: A ca. 1000Ma Closure age for the Purana Basins?), go to the references section at the end, and you'll find this: I couldn't find the Williams paper online, maybe Joe can provide a link.--Percy

Same method. In that Radiometric Dating article, it's the same approach described in the paragraph that begins, "First note that the time..." With time since formation equal to t, you know the (²⁰⁶Pb/²⁰⁴Pb)_t ratio by measurement, and you know the (²³⁸U/²⁰⁴Pb)_t ratio for different minerals in the rock by measurement. Equation (9) has only two unknowns, so as long as the rock has two or more different minerals you can solve for both t and (²⁰⁶Pb/²⁰⁴Pb)₀.--Percy

I didn't comment one way or the other on what method Joe used. You asked, "how to calculate (Pb206/Pb204)_o in equation 9" from the Radiometric Dating article, and whether they used the same method as for ⁸⁷Sr/⁸⁶Sr, and I explained that it was. It's all right there in the article.--Percy

Thanks for the information, but I wasn't talking about common lead correction methods. Peaceharris asked how the original lead isotope ratio was determined in this reference he provided (equation 9 from Radiometric Dating), and I was only describing the way that link says it's done. Or are you saying I misinterpreted the link. I have no detailed knowledge of the subject myself.--Percy

Oh, okay. I read through the U/Th/Pb section of the reference again and it makes more sense now. Did I at least understand the Rb/Sr technique about measuring different minerals from the same sample? I misinterpreted that section as prologue to the U/Th/Pb section, which is why I thought it was using the same approach.--Percy

Hi Peace,Don't you believe in a 6000 year-old Earth? So once you prove that Joe's analysis is wrong for a 1 billion year age for the Vindhyan Basin, don't you next have to prove wrong the previously accepted age of 500-700 million years? And after that don't you have to prove wrong all the thousands of studies over the past century or so that yield ages of millions to billions of years for various regions of the earth's surface?In other words, why this sudden interest in a possible change in the age estimate of the Vindhyan Basin, since the task before you is far broader than just one dating effort? Don't you have to demonstrate a conspiracy of fraudulent dating analyses spanning all nationalities and religions across many, many decades while maintaining complete secrecy?--Percy

I think Joe would be well advised to consider the words of hecd2 written in reply to Peaceharris's post: --Percy

Yours is one of the odder approaches to refuting radiometric dating that we've seen here. Instead of making ambiguous unsupported claims that it doesn't work, the usual tack for creationists, you're claiming the data gathered by geologists since the inception of radiometric dating actually indicates a young age for the earth but has simply been analyzed improperly. Does this make sense or even seem possible, even to you, since the agreement among dates would require massive incompetence along with massive collusion (and dishonesty) stretching across many decades with not one geologist letting out the secret. Why don't you ask if he'd be willing to walk through the calculations with you?You might find this very short article interesting: "RATE" Leaders Abandon Geologic Fantasies and Admit that Extensive Radioactive Decay has Occurred. It reports the conclusions of creationist RATE group members Humphreys and Baumgardner that radiometric dating is indeed accurately measuring the byproducts of radioactive decay that take millions or billions of years to form, and that they're now exploring other avenues for explanations of the radiometric dating "puzzle".The success of an interpretive framework is measured by its successes. The creationist interpretive framework of radiometric dating data has zero successes while that of mainstream geology has at least thousands. The lack of success is telling you that your interpretive framework of a young earth is wrong. All aspects of creation science remain mired about where they were 50 years ago, while during the same period mainstream science has had unprecedented success on almost all fronts.But the important question is one that has already been asked several times: Why do you feel you need scientific support for articles of faith?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Whoa, you don't get off that easy.It's to your credit to acknowledge a mistake, but look what it took to get there. You were evidently willing to believe that generations of radiometric dating scientists had their collective heads up their asses while your amateur scientist efforts were bringing us new insights. You have no record of producing any scientifically valid work, yet in this case you believed you'd shown up an entire field of science. Even when the general flow of your thinking was shown to be flawed you would not relent. It took someone with the time and knowledge to actually examine your calculations and give you chapter and verse about your mistakes before you would relent.From your kind of thinking springs the most egregious misconceptions about the nuts and bolts of how scientists practice science. It's a cold, cutthroat business. When one scientist produces a paper describing some new findings, other scientists do not just jump on board and congratulate him, and they don't do that because it is a cold, cutthroat business. If that scientist has actually discovered something new and interesting, then things like reputation and grant money and tenure will tend to flow in his direction, and that's reputation and grant money and tenure that won't flow in the direction of other scientists.So even if scientists did not have a love of science and for getting things right, even just their own self-interest (and vanity) demands that they work hard to make sure that other scientists only get credit for legitimately new and interesting discoveries. That's one reason why legitimate scientific journals have a peer review process, and that peer review process continues after the publication of the paper as other scientists review and test the results to see if they hold up.I know we'll never see the end of creationists who somehow convince themselves they've found basic scientific errors, but your experience in this thread is extremely instructive, and we should remember and cite this thread in the future when similar situations arise.Chris, many thanks for going to all the time and trouble.And Peacharris, again, kudos to you for acknowledging the errors. I encourage you to continue your efforts to find scientific errors, because seeking to correct error is always a good thing. But in the future you might want to pass your work by Chris before going public. When I've submitted papers to peer-reviewed publications I've always had a few colleagues go over them first, maybe Chris could play this role for you.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.