Isochron analysis is a crock. It assumes that the measured isotopes are
homogeneously mixed in the magma at time zero. No one knows, nor can know,
if they were homogeneously mixed or not. They were not there to measure it.
Their guesses mean nothing. Rationalization means nothing. The latest news
on the mixing of magma from Antarctica shows that the there is nothing
homogenous in magma. Look it up in the Internet. That lack of homogeneity
means that the base line of an isochron plot could be at nearly any slope
(not just zero) up to and including the current slope.
The only other way to try to detect deviations, since isotopes do not come
labeled as radiogenetic and non-radiogenetic, is by using other radiometric
dating methods, which happen to be subject to the same logical flaws in
assumptions. So, what you have is the blind leading the blind.
----- Original Message -----
From: John M. Lynch <john.lynch@asu.edu>
To: Allen & Diane Roy <Dianeroy@peoplepc.com>
Cc: Evolution Reflector <evolution@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 7:30 PM
Subject: Re: How is this for an Anti-Evolutionist's use of quotes?
> Allen & Diane Roy wrote:
> [snip]
> > Since, assumptions 3 and 5 are commonly false, then the whole concept
> > is pseudoscience nonsense (to put it kindly). If you want to accept
> > radiometric dating, go ahead. No amount of rationalization can make
> > falsified assumptions valid. I prefer my logic to be sound.
>
> ... and you've managed to completely ignore the fact that deviations
> from these assumptions can be detected (e.g. isochron analysis). If they
> are 'commonly false,' we know when they are, and why.
>
> It's analogous to a test for, say, a biochemical disease. It works
> _most_ of the time, and by use of controls etc we can detect when it
> wont work.
>
> -jml
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 04 2000 - 01:11:11 EDT