>My objective was to point out the way presuppositions operate,
>and to give a couple of examples of it in geo-chronology. Your
>comment presupposes that the presuppositions of these radiometric
>dating methods are valid. But if the isotopic data is better
>understood in terms of geochemical or non-radiogenic geophysical
>causes, the data is not meaningful in a chronological sense. My
>concern is that the academic world is NOT alert to, or even
>looking for, such alternative perspectives on the data.
What do you mean by this? Do you have references? I am not a geologist,
but I understand radioactive decay and I have read a few references on
radiometric dating methods and the rules geologists use to qualify samples
to reduce the possiblility of errors. As nearly as I can tell, their
science is sound.
There _are_ indeed some potential pitfalls in radiometric dating -- nothing
insurmountable, but things careful investigators should avoid. I've looked
at isochron dating a little, and it's always amazed me that in the past ten
years or so, not _once_ has any young-earth creationist critique of
isochron dating that I've seen mentioned a single one of these real
problems. That leads me to believe that the young-earth creationists who
are criticizing isochron dating don't understand it. There has also been
an incredibly wrong-headed criticism of K-Ar adting that has been
repeatedly published in YEC materials.
Bill Hamilton | Chassis & Vehicle Systems
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
hamilton@gmr.com (office) | whamilto@mich.com (home)