From: bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Response to Michael Simon, part 3
Date: 17 Dec 92 21:36:31 GMT


Continuing my response to Michael Simon

>> me

>With regard to cases of multiple distinct isochron dates agreeing in a
>sample, you have said NOTHING unless you can demonstrate some even remotely
>conceivable geological and chemical processes that would a) "reset" all
>isotope series [this in geolocial sites that are at all points of the
>geological column and with well-understood sequential histories regardless of
>any absolute dates that might be obtained] or b) somehow maintain an on-going
>chemical regime that would lead each and every series to the same false line.

As Michael agrees to, geologic processes can and do affect dating accuracy
His main point is that erroneous results wouln't agree.  But whether or not
they would agree depends *entirely* on what processes acted and what the total
effect was.  He lists what I have to do to show that wrong dates could agrree.
But he has an equal amount of work to show that they couldn't.

Assume that the probability of independently wrong isochron date's agreeing is
small.  Michael wants to reject the possibility because of this.  But the
theory that the earth is 4+ billion years old also involves a low-probability
event: that the rocks did not erode and are are still present.  I have
mentioned this a number of times, and can recall omnly two answers ever
given (one of which was essentially "its not a problem).  And I have not
heard anybody complain about a question not answered by those who believe in an
old earth.

>Not to mention the confirmation of such things as astronomical cycles in
>the earth's orbit with geological traces of glaciation,

Do these go back 4 billion years?

>estimates of cratering and asteroidal impact throughout the solar system,
>etc. ad nauseum.

These don't show an absolute age.

>>    The statement was made (many times) that isochrons were self-checking
>>    and hence not subject to these errors.  I responded that this was so
>>    according to a theory which has not been validated.

>You mean that chemistry and physics have not been validated?  Ohmigosh.

Please don't put words in my mouth.  I haven't said anything remotely
resembling this.  The fact is that there are samples which are known to date
wrong via isocrhons and other radioactive methods.  These samples were affected
by the same chemistry and physics as is everything else.  Conclusion: verified
chemistry and physics do not relate to dating accuracy.

>>    Chris is claiming, however, that consistent results are a special
>>    case, in that of all the processes which affect isotope rations, only
>>    *one* -- the passage of time -- could produce such results.  This
>>    asseertion is stated as if it is a self-evident fact. It is not.

>You are misrepresenting the case.  It *is* a "self-evident fact" (once
>one grants a meager amount of chemistry) that NO chemical process acts
>over many long years of time with identical proportional results on
>different elements.

The "meager amount of chemistry" is observation of the processes that affect
isotope ratios. To establish his statement that wrong dates couldn't agree
Michael would have to determine, for a particular sample, what processes could
have acted and what effects they would have had.  He would the have to show
that no combination of effects could have falsely lead to the dates observed.
(The above is applying to Michael's claims the same standard of evidence he
applies to mine.)

>Thus we get to MY beef with you:  any such process that would yield a 
>false isochron in ONE series MUST (by the nature of chemical differences
>among elements) operate otherwise on other elements.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Michael's statement is true: "NO
chemical process acts over many long years of time with identical proportional
results on different elements."  This still ignores several things:

1. There is no requirement that only one process act.

2. There is no requirement that the process(es) act over many long years.

3. The data presentation techniques used can make it appear that there is
   correlation when there is none.


>Hence, the mutual agreement of DIFFERENT isochrons is evidence for validity
>of EACH.  This is what you CLAIM to have addressed, and I doubt you even
>understand it.

Since I just posted an article on this subject, I won't repeat everything here.
But in science and technology,  mutual agreement of different measurements in
not sufficient to consider them to be accurate.  There is no reson to make an
exception here.


I hope to be quite clear:  I don't reject the isochron claims because I don't
understand them or the basis on which they are made.  I reject them because
this basis is not used and *is not considered sufficient for scientific
claims in other areas* and because observed data contradicts the claims.

References:

[1] Felix Chayes, "Use of Correlation Statistics with Rubidium-Strontium
    Systemics, _Science_, vol 196, June 10, 1977, pages 1234-1235

[2] C. Brooks, D.E. James, and S.R. Hart, "Ancient Lithosphere: Its Role in
    Young Continental Volcanism," _Science_ Volume 193, September 17, 1976,
    pages 1086-1094

[3] Carter, Evensen, Hamilton, and O'Nions, "Neodymium and Strontium Isotope
    Evidence for Crustal Contamination of Continental Volcanos," _Science_,
    vol 202, November 17, 1978, pages 743-747

[4] Gunter Fahr, _Principles of Isotope Geology_ [Sorry, no page
    reference immediately available]

   Bob Bales
   Tektronix, Inc.

I help Tektronix make their instruments. They don't help me make my opinions.
Newsgroups: talk.origins