Isochron dating methods
Coeditor of Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Radiocarbon and Tritium Dating. Karabinos Thomas Edvard Krogh - Director, Geochronology Laboratory, Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto.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? * Proves that discrepant and discordant dates are the RULE, not the exception. Results of dating methods typically fall in the multimillion-year to multibillion-year range. As a corollary to the previous question, would we not expect the results of the dating methods to consistently indicate essentially zero ages if the earth was only a few thousand years old? (That is, an overall older-to-younger progression of isotopic dates relative to biostratigraphy.) (pp. * 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?
Gives examples of dates rejected in spite of producing a flat Ar-Ar release pattern.
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?