This will be controversial and I'm open to discussion about this. In an article about the Grand Canyon, Snellings trys to prove that all radiometric dating is flawed but only ends up proving that he deliberately used bad methods.

for those interested here's why what Snellings did  was wrong:
http://scienceantiscience.blogspot.com/2006/04/bad-answers-in-genes...
and here's the original article:
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/radioisotop...
and here's his reply to a concerned writer:
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/radioisotop...

In short he sent "whole rock" samples of a metamorphic rock - one that has been heated previously in the past at an unknown time - and had them tested using different methods and got different dates. But here's why. He selected a rock with many complexities - Metamophorpic - sent the wrong sample sizes -whole rock - used the wrong method - Potasium-Argon - and stated that he should have gotten good results;  but when you put bad garbage in, you should expect bad garbage out.


the most telling quote:
"All the problems with the different radioisotope systems C.H. has highlighted have already been extensively reported in my chapter in the first volume of the Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) project published in 2000 and referenced in the Creation article, and yes, all these problems are reported in the standard textbooks in geochronology. The article was designed to corroborate these problems, and it did. And I agree with C.H. that none of these radioisotope systems are reliable in dating these rocks, which was the conclusion of the article. "

But here's the thing, if I try to hammer a screw into a piece of wood and then expose the problems but don't inform the readers that I used a hammer instead of a screwdriver, then I'm decieving everyone, especially if I then try to prove that carpentry is flawed.

Views: 74

Comment

You need to be a member of Creation Conversations to add comments!

Join Creation Conversations

Comment by PhiloNibbler on May 18, 2015 at 10:05pm

also their are problems with K-AR but this has been mitigated by using AR-AR instead which is using the same dating techinques just adds in steps to ensure that the dates are more accurate and eliminates some of the assumptions in K-AR

Comment by PhiloNibbler on May 18, 2015 at 10:00pm

[edit: last sentence I noticed had a mistake] *It would be as if I tried to screw a wood screw into sheet metal -while failing to mention these details - then said that this shows no one can screw screws into sheet metal and that anyone who says they have has an agenda.

Comment by PhiloNibbler on May 18, 2015 at 9:58pm

Mary, not quite. I'm still reading about K-AR dating, but the RATE team based their observations on known flaws in techniques that most respectable scientists know not to do when using K-AR. Also, as outlined in the sources mentioned - not on AIG, CMI, or ICR - they either deliberately or incorrectly performed their experiments and used the bad results - from bad data they selected - and then published it as if it invalidated all sciencists using any radiometric dating techniques. IF would be as if I tried to screw a wood screw into sheet metal -while failing to mention these details - then said that this shows no one can screw screws into sheet metal and that anyone who says they have has an agenda.

Comment by Mary White on May 18, 2015 at 9:44pm

The impression I got from the R.A.T.E. book was that K-Ar was so unreliable that I thought it would probably stop being used.   However, the Evolution Achilles Heels DVD mentioned that if the rock is very old, a little original Ar would not skew the results a lot.    So I guess if a rock is KNOWN (actually assumed) to be very old then K-Ar may still be used?   I did not take the time to follow all the science antiscience blog, but I could see he is explaining the different results by different solidification times of the minerals.  I suppose the issue would be if this is a reasonable explanation or a "rescuing device."

About CC

Connecting Christians who believe in Biblical Creation — discussing beliefs, sharing ideas, and recommending evolution-free resources. Please keep all posts relevant to the topics of this community.

Rules of Engagement
Zero Tolerance Policy
Statement of Faith
Creation Terms
FAQ

Homeschool Curriculum

Members

Creation Conversations 2018

What's new @ CC for 2018? 

Creation networking and much more in store for Creation Conversation Members. You'll not want to miss this new year!

© 2019   Created by Creation Conversations.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service