"Intrigued , as always I went to dig a little deeper into the methods used . Generally speaking , one of the best dating methods for an amphibolite metamorphic rock would be to separate out amphiboles for Ar-Ar dating . Using the argon-argon variant of K-Ar allows many cross checks for excess argon or argon loss that are invisible to standard K-Ar dating . At the very least , a better approach would be to date the rocks using individual minerals . The worst possible method would be to measure the age on an inhomogeneous whole rock sample . In the footnotes , the methods are described as follows : Whole rockÂ ’ samples were analyzed in all casesÂ—K-Ar at Activation Laboratories , Ancaster , Ontario , Canada ; Rb-Sr , Sm-Nd and Pb-Pb at the PRISE Laboratory , Research School of Earth Sciences , Australian National University , Canberra , Australia . .... In short , this is a classic example of geochronology done poorly . Snelling either deliberately chose the worst rocks and the worst methods in order to guarantee strange results or was grossly incompetent . Well , ok maybe both . I also notice that the data are not given in the creation article . If someone has a more detailed description of the results , it 'd be fun to look at the individual data points more carefully . Lastly , Snelling implicitly suggests that if geochronology is not correct every single time , then it can never be trusted . Wonder if he ever gets on a airplane ."
"He has a bit more basic information about R.A.T.E . on his webpage . TO also has a page critiquing R.A.T.E . methodology . Sorry , I know you 're looking for more substantial personal feedback , but this is some good basic information that does n't rely upon a billion links . You also might consider asking this question on iidb.org , and maybe Dr. Meert will respond to you personally . More importantly , let us not get hung up on analyzing the raw empirical data only . For example , if I use a stopwatch to time how long it takes for light to flood the room after I turn on the switch , and I come up with 0.06s , you ca n't argue with my empirical data : I timed it at 0.06s . The fact that human response time is comparatively lousy and that a stopwatch is awful for extremely short time intervals is more significant that the stopwatch reading itself . This is the primary error that R.A.T.E . makes ."
"In short , this is a classic example of geochronology done poorly . Snelling either deliberately chose the worst rocks and the worst methods in order to guarantee strange results or was grossly incompetent . Well , ok maybe both ."
"He has a bit more basic information about R.A.T.E . on his webpage . TO also has a page critiquing R.A.T.E . methodology . Sorry , I know you 're looking for more substantial personal feedback , but this is some good basic information that does n't rely upon a billion links ."