WT writes:
Why else are the discard/reject dates rejected ?
KBS Tuff was one dating event that was used by me to show this.
Since I am no dating expert, I can't go into the detail, so I will offer what I know.
The Geologic Column was constructed long before quantitative age-dating techniques and therefore, ultimately, everything goes back to that.
One of the first things that happens in geology is mapping. The lithologies are mapped, structures are mapped, samples collected, and if there are sedimentary rocks, hopefully there are fossils (preferably of the index kind) that can be collected. Generally, simple geologic mapping will tell us what we need to know with respect to age. Occasionally, no matter how much we map or study the map, we cannot determine the age of a unit. That's when age-dating techniques are most useful.
So say we have a rock that we know is Cretaceous in age because of index fossils, and we decide to date an intrusion and it comes back with a age of 400 Ma. That date is suspect. We know the intrusion cannot be 400 Ma so we either date it again, go back and make sure the Cretaceous rocks are actually Cretaceous. If they are, then the date is no good. Mistakes CAN be made, however.
Then we go back and attempt to determine exactly why the date was bad. Sometimes we find out and other times we don't. Nonetheless, that date is not used, though oftentimes that date will be mentioned in a paper or at least included in a table. Data is data and most scientists abhor the thought of "discarding" any of it.
Other reasons could be for discovering an intrusion nearby or metamorphism after the sample was collected and dated (causing the sample to be thermally disturbed). Or perhaps, the sample was collected by someone lacking the expertise.
Well, other than the KBS Tuff, is there another example of suspicious dating results?
quote:
You will NEVER leave the ballpark of what is already known/published.
It happens everyday, WT. You just don't know it because your only source of information is Milton, Scott, and the internet.
quote:
And what is already known/published is a database of self-fulfilling predictions that has no independant and external accuracy check.
Independent verification is carried out everyday when we: 1) map the rocks and their relationships to other rocks, and 2) when the dates correlate to the Geologic Column.
And if you could spare the time, please show me where I might obtain this database of age-dates. I think it would come in quite handy.
quote:
I and Milton are saying what is already known and published is based upon at its origin dating parameters that were subjectively estimated while the ones doing the estimates allowed their conclusions to exist under the false guise that they were scientifically determined.
WT, it would help immensely if you could start punctuating your sentences a bit more. I have to re-read your posts many times before I understand what you are saying.
Yes, we know, based on lithologic relationships, what ages some rocks should be. No secret there. However, then why do you think we are wasting all that money to date the rocks? For the Evil Evolutionist Conspiracy?
Don't you think if we knew the ages of the rocks we are age-dating that we wouldn't be spending any money doing it?
Please tell me WHY we are wasting all that money.
quote:
I and Milton are saying that the only true independant and external dating accuracy checks substantiate enough technique failures that quite rightly falsify any claim that says dating techniques are reliable deserving of no asterisk.
And what, pray tell, are those independent and external verifications?
) and I have my own ideas of what intruded what, based on more recent mapping. At the moment, my theories don't exactly mesh with previous research and I would love nothing more than to overturn the reigning paradigm in my study area.
™ Version 4.2