One of the profound facts in geology is that the stunning agreements with the common methods telling time that the geologists have that provides a powerful consilience on the subject of the age of the Earth.
Joe Meert is a geologist involved with radiometric dating. He has put up a short article on the consistency of radiometric dating.
Consistent Radiometric dates
He provides some examples from his own research of the striking argreement of various methods of telling time.
He first gives two examples of multiple methods giving the same results.
Then he goes into more detail. Large plutons take millions of years to cool down. (The physics of this is well understood.) The one he give is about 20 km
in diameter. The expected cooling curve can be drawn up. Now here is the neat part. Different radiometric clocks start ticking at different tempuratures. The geologists did the radiometric tests and they agree with the theoretical cooling curve. Also lava as it solidifies records the magnetic field it is exposed to. When this happened is known from the data. This can now be taken and compared to other samples of the same radiometric age from the supercontenent of Gondwana. If radiometric methods work we would expect the magnetic records of that radiometric date to have the same polarity and direction. And they do. The odd of this happening by chance are extremely small.
==========
G. Brent Dalrymple is one of the foremost workers in the field of radiometric dating and he wrote the following:
Radiometeric Dating Does Work! Some Examples and a Critique of a Failed Creationist Strategy
Dalrymple give four examle of extremely striking agreements of radiometric dating with the emphasis that he was picking just four out of many, many more. The data
is very striking.
===========
We can not only test radiometric tests against each other, but against other indication of age.
Are Radioactive Dates Consistent With The Deeper-Is-Older Rule?
Basically someone dug out a bunch of K-Ar tests of an area and sorted out by named age which they came and found that the deeper stratigraphic position the older the results of the radiometric test. Thirteen ages were dated. If only one radiometric test per age was done the odd of this pattern resulting would be one in 13!=6,227,020,800. Since some of the ages had multiple tests (the Claredonian had 16 tests) the odds are considerably worse.
Lets see if anyone can actually respond to this. No creationist on this board has been able to as much as provide any objection to either of my isochron threads, the thread ("Supermisquotations") about the creationists misquoting astronomers on supernova remenants, or on the thread demonstrating Kent Hovind is wrong on his cytochrome C claims so I don't have high hopes.
Joe Meert is a geologist involved with radiometric dating. He has put up a short article on the consistency of radiometric dating.
Consistent Radiometric dates
He provides some examples from his own research of the striking argreement of various methods of telling time.
He first gives two examples of multiple methods giving the same results.
Then he goes into more detail. Large plutons take millions of years to cool down. (The physics of this is well understood.) The one he give is about 20 km
in diameter. The expected cooling curve can be drawn up. Now here is the neat part. Different radiometric clocks start ticking at different tempuratures. The geologists did the radiometric tests and they agree with the theoretical cooling curve. Also lava as it solidifies records the magnetic field it is exposed to. When this happened is known from the data. This can now be taken and compared to other samples of the same radiometric age from the supercontenent of Gondwana. If radiometric methods work we would expect the magnetic records of that radiometric date to have the same polarity and direction. And they do. The odd of this happening by chance are extremely small.
==========
G. Brent Dalrymple is one of the foremost workers in the field of radiometric dating and he wrote the following:
Radiometeric Dating Does Work! Some Examples and a Critique of a Failed Creationist Strategy
Dalrymple give four examle of extremely striking agreements of radiometric dating with the emphasis that he was picking just four out of many, many more. The data
is very striking.
===========
We can not only test radiometric tests against each other, but against other indication of age.
Are Radioactive Dates Consistent With The Deeper-Is-Older Rule?
Basically someone dug out a bunch of K-Ar tests of an area and sorted out by named age which they came and found that the deeper stratigraphic position the older the results of the radiometric test. Thirteen ages were dated. If only one radiometric test per age was done the odd of this pattern resulting would be one in 13!=6,227,020,800. Since some of the ages had multiple tests (the Claredonian had 16 tests) the odds are considerably worse.
Lets see if anyone can actually respond to this. No creationist on this board has been able to as much as provide any objection to either of my isochron threads, the thread ("Supermisquotations") about the creationists misquoting astronomers on supernova remenants, or on the thread demonstrating Kent Hovind is wrong on his cytochrome C claims so I don't have high hopes.
