his turf just as much as the rest of us. So don't let his opinions alone
carry much weight. Investigate the data yourself and then arrive at your
own conclusion. Steve is not automatically wrong because he is a short ager,
and Dalrymple is not necessarily right because he agrees with the accepted
paradigm.<<
This is great advice. But as you note, everyone has an agenda. Steve's
agenda is to prove the world a few thousand years old.
My original complaint was poorly expressed but the closer one can get in
isochron dating to having the same object the better and more confident one
can be that the answer is correct. Steve used 5 samples, from 4 different
quarternary lava flows to construct his graph. If these did not come from
the same melt, i.e. were not co genetic, then Steve's results are suspect.
(see page 124 of his Grand Canyon Book.)
Secondly, one of the complaints that YEC's often have of conventional
dating results is that good dates get published and bad ones get thrown out
and not published. (See John Woodmorappe, "Radiometric Geochronology
Reappraised", Creation REsearch Soc. Quarterly, Sept. 1979,p 113. He says
"...anomalous dates frequently (or usually) are not reported in scientific
journals") It is quite interesting that Steves sample numbers for the
Cardenas basalt are b-3, b-3a, b-6, b-7, tb-6 and b-8. His sample numbers
for the lava flows are qu-1, qu-2, qu-5, qu-14, and qu-14s. If these are all
the samples there are, then what a strange numbering system Steve uses. (see
p. 123-125 of his Grand Canyon Book). Why were just these 5 samples in each
case used and why were the others rejected and not included in the graph? I
simply can not find a discussion of why Steve used such a numbering system or
why he rejected the other samples if his numbering system is normal.
But let's go further than this. Let us assume for the moment that Steve is
correct and he has found a case in which isochron dating fails miserably.
What are the implications?
First, one could come up with some schemes which would make the local
lava flows to be unique. One could assume that a large percentage of the
melts which formed the quaternary lava flows were made up of xenoliths (such
as a large fraction might have been remelted Cardenas basalt, thus giving an
anomalously old age.
But if you don't like that, then let's assume that Steve has truly found
a case which totally disproves isochron dating, and thus, all other forms of
radiometric dating. And further that this means that the earth is truly
10,000 years old. This means,
1 everything we think we know about radioactivity is absolutely wrong!
a. The A-bomb explodes but we really don't know why they explode.
b. Gamma ray spectroscopy from nuclear sources is absolutely
erroneous and the theory upon which it is based is erroneous.
c. I can never trust a radioactive oil well log again.
d. The rates of radioactivity must have been faster in the past
which requires
1. the heat given off by having all the known decay take place in
such a short time should have melted the earth's crust within
the past few thousand years (there is no evidence of this)
2. There is no evidence of faster rates of radioactivity in
radioactive nuclides observed in distant stars.Yet if Steve is
right, all the following must be wrong.
Supernova 1987a has given convincing evidence that the rate
of Co-56 and 57 were the same 170 years ago as they are
today. Even compressing the supernova into a 10,000 year
chronology, gives the same result, the rates of radioactivity
10,000 years ago in Steve's chronology is the same as
today. The gamma ray energies given off by the excited
nucleus of Co-56 and C0 57 in the supernova debris is the
same as we observe and the same as our theory would
predict. (see Stan Woosley and Tom Weaver, "The Great
Supernova of 1987 Scientific American, Aug 1989, p. 37)
E. The speed of light must be variable. This means that relativity must
be wrong and we do not understand why an atom smasher works like it does.
Our theory of gravitation must also be wrong because in Einsteins
formulation, it depends on the velocity of light and yet Einsteins
formulation matches observation more closely than any other theory formulated
by man. That of course, does not matter because all scientific knowledge is
wrong.
2. Everything we observe in Geology is unaccounted for
A. Rates of deposition, like that of the Green River Shale with 13
million layers which alternate between limestone and sappropel, have
periodicities (assuming the layers are yearly deposits) of the El Nino (5.8
years), solar cycle (11 years), precession of the equinoxes (20,000 years and
the eccentricity cycle (100,000 years). If these were deposited in a year
flood as Steve wants, then why are there 100,000 couplet cycles, and 11
couplet cycles? This makes absolutely no sense with a young earth. (see
Alfred G. Fischer and Lillian T. Roberts, "Cyclicity in the Green River
Formation Of Wyoming," Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 61:7 Dec 1991 p.
1147)
Could one layer be deposited every 2 second over the 40,000 square
kilometers and retain the chemical purity in the layers that we observe, as
Steve would have us believe?
B. Salt is found sandwiched in the middle of the geologic column and
contains meteor dust particles, and pollen grains. in quantities which are
This requires that the salt be exposed to the surface of the earth long
enough to accumulate the cosmic dust and pollen prior to its subsequent
burial. (for meteor dust see James Matthew Barnett, Sedimentation Rate of
Salt Determined by Micrometeorite Analysis, M.S. Thesis, Western Michigan
University, 1983 He used Silurian Salt from Michigan.)
C. Each mole of limestone gives off around 270 kilocalories of heat per
mole. To deposit the 5 x 10^21 moles of carbonate on the earth is 1.44 x
10^27 calories. This limestone is deposited over 30% of the earth's surface
(mostly on top of the continents) and was not deposited within the last 5,000
years. If the universe is only 10,000 years old, then it all must have been
deposited during the first 5,000 years of the earth's history.
The heat generated per square centimeter is 1.44 x 10^27 calories/
1.53 x 10^18. There are 1.53 x 10^18 square centimeters over the continents.
Thus each square centimeter of earth must get rid of 938,878,740 calories
during the time the limestone was deposited. Since Steve wants it all
deposited during the flood, that means that each square centimeter must
radiate heat at a rate 150 greater than that which we receive from the sun.
Everyone would cook.
3. To derive the genetic variability we observe rates of evolution must be
much faster than even the most rabid evolutionist believes.
For all these reasons, and more, I have a perfectly legitimate reason to be
skeptical of Steve's result which, with what he really wants from the data,
would require an entire re-write of all science. I don't think that is
possible. Science can not be based upon the anomaly. If it can be, then
flying saucers exist, mental telepathy works, Bhuddist monks can levitate
rocks, ghosts exist etc. Science is an organic whole. Destruction of one
part, has implications elsewhere. Thus, since Steve's result is the one
anomaly, it is the one which should recieve the most scrutiny.
glenn