quote:
Thanks for the bump, but I'm getting very weary of debating all of this. I know most creos don't ever get a grasp on what their debating. I read through some of this article and I read through some other creo and evo articles on the net and find all kinds contradictory stuff. Like the 100 year old lava flow on Hawaii that dated as old as 2.9 billion years and an average of 1.4 bill by several different methods... I'm sure there's an evo explanation for it, and I'm sure there are creo explanations for it. And then another evo site showing high correlations, and then another creo pointing out flaws and assumptions...
This is a misquote, and a deliberate one at that (at least by the originator).
Note the title of the paper in which the data appears:
quote:
Radiogenic Helium and Argon in Ultramafic Inclusions from Hawaii, J.G. Funkhouser and J.J. Naughton, Journal of Geophysical Research 73:14 pp. 4601-4607 (15 July 1968)
My emphasis. The thrust of the research was on
inclusions: non-melted rocks included in a magma reservoir and carried along with a lava flow. The base lava was radio-dated and duly returned a date of 0 (100 years is too small to show up), as was clearly stated in the study.
However, when the inclusions were dated, they threw up dates all over the place. This was what was expected: the heat had driven out some of the relevant isotopes.
That was why the study was done: to show that radio-dating of lava inclusions was not possible, and disproving the (minority) view that this would enable the base lava to be dated.
For Whigs admit no force but argument.
™ Version 4.2
