Yes, I have been looking at some of those sites you mentioned. Sorry, I’m still not convinced. I’ll take the liberty of quoting directly from some of them – sorry, due to time constraints, I haven’t given individual references to each of these, but I’ve backed this up on a word processor so that I can be formal and correct when I have opportunity.“If the solar system formed from a common pool of matter, which was uniformly distributed in terms of Pb isotope ratios, then the initial plots for all objects from that pool of matter would fall on a single point”
It is interesting to note, first of all, the “if.” Here we are making a broad, unproveable assumption. Also, the entire dating method is relegated to the assumed factuality of this assumption.
“If the source of the solar system was also uniformly distributed with respect to uranium isotope ratios, then the data points will always fall on a single line.”
Another broad assumption. May or may not be true. Certainly unsustainable and, since it contradicts Genesis, I assert that it is false.
“Morris chose to pick obsolete data with known problems, and call it the "best" measurement available. With the proper values, the expected depth of meteoritic dust on the Moon is less than one foot.”
In fact, it is minimal.
? “Many of the listed metals are in fact known to be at or near equilibrium; that is, the rates for their entering and leaving the ocean are the same to within uncertainty of measurement. (Some of the chemistry of the ocean floor is not well-understood, which unfortunately leaves a fairly large uncertainty.) One cannot derive a date from a process where equilibrium is within the range of uncertainty -- it could go on forever without changing concentration of the ocean.
? Even the metals which are not known to be at equilibrium are known to be relatively close to it. I have seen a similar calculation on uranium, failing to note that the uncertainty in the efflux estimate is larger than its distance from equilibrium. To calculate a true upper limit, we must calculate the maximum upper limit, using all values at the appropriate extreme of their measurement uncertainty. We must perform the calculations on the highest possible efflux rate, and the lowest possible influx rate. If equilibrium is within reach of those values, no upper limit on age can be derived.
? In addition, even if we knew exactly the rates at which metals were removed from the oceans, and even if these rates did not match the influx rates, these numbers are still wrong. It would probably require solving a differential equation, and any reasonable approximation must "figure in" the efflux rate. Any creationist who presents these values as an "upper limit" has missed this factor entirely. These published values are only "upper limits" when the efflux rate is zero (which is known to be false for all the metals). Any efflux decreases the rate at which the metals build up, invalidating the alleged "limit."
The method simply does not work. Ignoring the three problems above, the results are scattered randomly (five are under 1,000 years; five are 1,000-9,999 years; five are 10,000-99,999 years; six are 100,000-999,999 years; and six are 1,000,000 years or above). Also, the only two results that agree are 350 years, and Aluminum gives 100 years. If this is a valid method, then the age of the Earth must be less than the lowest "upper limit" in the table. Nobody in the debate would agree on a 100-year-old Earth.
These "dating methods" do not actually date anything, which prevents independent confirmation. (Is a 19M year "limit" [Sr] a "confirmation" of a 42k year "limit" [Hg]?) Independent confirmation is very important for dating methods -- scientists generally do not place much confidence in a date that is only computed from a single measurement.
These methods depend on uniformity of a process which is almost certainly not uniform. There is no reason to believe that influx rates have been constant throughout time. There is reason to expect that, due to a relatively large amount of exposed land, today's erosion (and therefore influx) rates are higher than typical past rates.
There is no "check" built into these methods. There is no way to tell if the calculated result is good or not. The best methods used by geologists to perform dating have a built-in check which identifies undatable samples. The only way a creatonist can "tell" which of these methods produce bad values is to throw out the results that he doesn't like. “
But don’t the dating methods commonly use assert that these metals in rock (uranium-lead, for example) are consistent by the same methods that creationists use to prove that the low metal content of the oceans indicates a young earth?
“Also, similarly to item (1) above, pleas to contamination do not address the fact that radiometric results are nearly always in agreement with old-Earth expectations. If the methods were producing completely "haywire" results essentially at random, such a pattern of concordant results would not be expected. “
The key word in this paragraph is “expectations.” If your basic assumption is true, then you may have valid expectations. Creationists assert that since the basic assumption is false, the “expectations must also be false. We don’t argue that the results ought to be random, simply that we would expect the same result IF the basic assumption were true. Since the assumption is false, the results are false.
“The catastrophist-uniformitarian debate ran from about 1780-1850. By the end of the 18'th century it was clear that the Earth had a long and varied history. Interest in major cosmogony was revived. The major debate was between the catastrophists, e.g., Cuvier, who held that the history of Earth was dominated by major catastrophic revolutions and the uniformitarians, e.g. Hutton and Lyell, who held that the history of Earth was dominated by slow relatively uniform changes in an Earth with a static over all history. During the early part of this period there was a considerable amount of activity by scriptural geologists who attempted to reconcile Genesis and geology. The efforts of the scriptural geologists failed signally; by 1830 scriptural geology was a dead issue in Science.
The modern period runs from AD 1850 to the present. The great debate was won by the uniformitarians, so much so that the degree of gradualism was overstated and the importance of catastrophes was unduly minimized. The modern period has been marked by an enormous expansion of the detailed knowledge of the geological history of the Earth and the processes that have acted during that history”
Sorry, I don’t buy the idea that. “the great debate was won by the uniformitarians.” The debate still rages on – as is evidenced by the current debate and the debate between NCR and other creationists and the sites quoted above and others.
Incidentally, even we creationists are surprised at times by the speed at which geologic forces can act. Consider, for example, the fact that following the eruption of Mt. Saint Helens, when the resulting dam at Spirit Lake broke loose, a 1/40th scale model Grand Canyon was carved out of rock (complete with strata) within 3-5 days. Could this mean that a similar geologic event could have formed the Grand Canyon is just 120 – 200 days (3-5 x 40)???
