Anti-Climacus writes:
My example of the Borg et al study convincingly demonstrates the following points:
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).
This means that those who support geologic time must again resort to special pleading and rationalizations to explain how, in cases where Tertiary is found lying directly upon Precambrian, 480 million years of geologic time just happened to disappear; or for the other three examples given above — 410 million, 340 million, and 295 million years of alleged geologic time just happened to vanish into thin air.
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