muso wrote on Aug 15
th, 2011 at 4:09pm:
Yadda wrote on Aug 15
th, 2011 at 3:12pm:
Duh, duh, duh!!!!!
The scientific process folks....
PRESENT EVIDENCE...Present rocks to an accredited laboratory for radiometric dating.
ANALYSE EVIDENCE...Accredited laboratory uses an approved radiometric dating method to determine the age of the submitted rocks.
SCRUTINISE RESULTS...The use of radiometric dating, to determine the age of those rocks, fails to determine the correct age of those rocks.
Conclusion; Using the process of radiometric dating, to determine the age of rocks is unreliable.
+++
ABOVE, I present an example of 'the scientific process'; see the details in my post, #6
But not one of you atheists, who claim to worship at the alter of the scientific process, even recognise what the scientific process is!
Isn't 'the scientific process', the use of the rigour of truth in analysis of evidence, to prove or to disprove a hypothesis ???
In post #6 above, i give an example, where a scientific process
PROVES that the use of radiometric dating, to determine the age of rocks, fails to reliably determine the correct age of those rocks.
AND NOT ONE OF YOU, IS WILLING TO CONCEDE THAT TRUTH. 1. That's why you can't rely on just one (radiometric) dating procedure.
2. It's outside the establish age range for the technique(K-Ar dating). The whole idea of using that particular technique to date a recent rock is ludicrous given that it's only used for ancient rocks, and it has a standard error of +/- 50 million years for the oldest rocks. Realistically the youngest item that can be dated with that technique is around 100,000 years, but nobody in their right mind would use it for that purpose. At 500,000 years it's is probably more accurate.
The whole test was contrived to attempt to prove a creationist agenda. Generally those technicans carrying out radiometric dating use a variety of techniques. (They use their brains)
muso,
The whole mt_st_helens_dacite dating test was contrived was it ?
+++
Duh....
'RATIONALIZING' RADIOMETRIC DATES?
Woodmorappe (1999), Swenson, and other YECs frequently accuse geochronologists of 'rationalizing away' any anomalous radiometric dates. However, how is the obvious mess in Austin's Figure 4 a 'rationalization'? Why would we expect a young dacite that is full of zoned phenocrysts to give one uniform date? How is the reality of Bowen's Reaction Series a 'rationalization'? How are the limitations of Geochron's equipment a 'rationalization'?
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/mt_st_helens_dacite_kh.htmDid the laboratory know that it was young dacite ???
i.e.
How could ANYONE [besides Austin and Swenson] know that it was young dacite ???muso,
Scenario;I submit some [volcanic] rocks [to an accredited laboratory] for dating.
I ostensibly [i.e.
in a normal case] would have no idea how old, or, how young, the [volcanic] rocks submitted for dating are.
i.e.! i.e.! i.e.!
The radiometric dating process
[itself] is supposed to be able to reliably determine the age of [volcanic] rocks i have submitted for dating!
Surely, that is the whole point of submitting the [volcanic] rocks to a radiometric dating process !!
i.e.! i.e.! i.e.!
To reliably determine the age of the [volcanic] rocks!!
Q.
So why would Austin and Swenson be at fault.....in submitting those young [volcanic] rocks for a radiometric dating process ???
A.
BECAUSE Austin AND Swenson
'SCIENTIFICALLY', DEMONSTRATED A FLAW IN THE METHOD, THAT IS BEING WIDELY USED, TO 'RELIABLY' DETERMINE THE AGE OF ROCKS AND FOSSILS.
Naughty, naughty, Austin and Swenson !!!!
i.e.
Because Austin and Swenson should
NOT try to show how a radiometric dating process could be 'misapplied', and thereby commonly obtain unreliable dating results !
Oh no!
/sarc off
And those who say they support the 'scientific process' are all 'up in arms', over the 'deception' perpetrated by Austin and Swenson.
The holy and sacrosanct 'scientific process' - SHOWN TO BE FLAWED.
LOL