Modern dating methods Chat with sexy girl without any rajistration
For the longest time, we have all been taught that the great age of the earth and its rocks is an established fact. Fact or Fable: The presumed reliability of isotopic dates can be assessed objectively from analytic data, and independent of any uniformitarian geologic interpretations? However, close examination of the isotopic dating methods instead shows a colossal manipulation of data covered by an elaborate Orwellian cover language. Can it be truthfully said that isotopic, biostratigraphic, and geomagnetic results independently corroborate each other? What about the claim that assessing the reliability of isotopic dates is a rigorous, scientific procedure? True or False: Inherited (xenocrystic) zircons, a source of U-Pb results which are “too old”, seldom occur? Are tuffs and bentonites largely exempt from the xenocrystic-zircon problem for U-Pb dating? When apologists of isotopic-dating methods assert that all discrepant isotopic results have a rational geologic explanation that corresponds closely with the known geology of the region, are they speaking a partial truth, a trivial truth, or both? Does the geologic complexity of Precambrian terrains excuse the discordance of isotopic dates obtained from them? Refutes the claim that non-co linearity on an inverse diagram validates the isochron-based date. Apropos to the previous question, would we actually need some sort of massive conspiracy in place to force agreement on “correct” radioisotope dates? * Demonstrates how the highly touted Ar-Ar spectral method has not fulfilled its expectations. Is it fact, or uniformitarian wishful thinking, that there exists a tight consensus of dating results for the Phanerozoic geologic column?
If conventional geochronometric dating methods are invalid, why are they still being used? * Indicates why “good” dates don’t in themselves accredit the dating methods. Leaving aside the question of the validity or otherwise of the methodologies for a moment, do presumed reliability criteria even agree with each other in predicting which dating results will be reliable and which one will not? Does this prove that the correct ages of rocks are at least approximately in the millions to billions of years? Demonstrates how geologists commonly backpedal on opinions of which particular dates are supposedly valid. Practical geochronometry: Assuming for the sake of argument the validity of the “self-checking” methodologies, do we find that geochronologists at least agree among themselves on the reliability or unreliability of particular dating results? * Shows how “reliability criteria” are used inconsistently, and are even waived when the result fits the ruling theory. ) Scientific Fact or Scientific Folklore: Isotopic dates are unambiguously divisible into “credible” and “non-credible” categories? * Shows how even low-temperature fluid processes can cause open systems in dates. Reality or Rhetoric: Isotopic-dating results are usually internally consistent?
Proves the ad hoc nature of deciding which zircons are primary and which are xenocrysts. When apologists for radiometric dating assert that discrepant isotopic dating results are very rare overall (comparable perhaps to a few malfunctioning watches, or a few rotten apples), are they speaking the truth?