Visualization/Animation of Objections to Old Age Geological Column

The consilience is not ‘supposed’, it is readily seen across multitudes of published analyses. Do you really want me to post a new valid analysis every day here? I could, you know, and I would never run out.

Cherry picking huh? Did you miss the bit where I explained that fitting the isochrones is done using standard statistical methods, and that there are standard statistical procedures applied to decide if data points actually fall on straight lines with statistical significance? That lines drawn with larger errors than that are not called ‘isochrones’ but ‘errorchrones’ and that they are not considered to be valid datings?

Of course there are instances where an analysis has failed. This can be for many different reasons. The fun bit is that at times the failures point to further research and insights in what might have happened in the past to cause the data distribution that we see. So even failed analyses can often be useful and add some value.

If there was no statistical significance in these methods, people would have stopped long ago spending money on them. Is anyone still paying alchemists for transforming lead into gold? Thought not.


Minority of what, when we actually have LIVE observed events less than 100 years ago being dated hundreds of millions of years off because they inherited isotope ratios from other sources?

I haven’t sifted through enough data, but it looks pretty pathetic. What I can’t explain is some of the cherry picked data yet…

You can’t explain ANY of the many geologic features you’ve been shown. That doesn’t stop you from crowing like a cock-o-the-walk and running from the evidence. :slightly_smiling_face:

Note that Sal can’t even say what the mainstream geologic history of the Grand Staircase is let alone provide any evidence the mainstream view is absurd. It’s all bluster and posturing as usual.


Why would anyone try to date something that happened 100’s of years ago with methods designed to date things millions of years ago? Why would anyone expect valid results from doing something like that?

So, where are all the radiocarbon datings of coal showing that it is a few thousands years old? Radiocarbon dating is designed for such ages. Surely there must be tons of examples around, if the coal is indeed thousands of years old? If not, where did the C14 go?

And while on the subject, where are all the short-life radiogenic isotopes we would expect to find in nature, if nature was only a few thousands year old? How come they, and only they, cannot be found? Why is there still plenty of slow decaying U235 and U238 around, and K40, and Rb87, and others, but no short lived ones with half-lives between 0.7 - 80 millions of years? Why are these selective depleted?


Oh, you mean when some dishonest YECs submitted lava from a recent eruption known to be contaminated with much older xenoliths then tried to pass off the old returned dates as fatal flaws in all radiometric dating? That kind of source? :roll_eyes:


That’s like acknowledging a defect in the flat earth model at the present time. The question is whether you have any reason to suppose that the defect will or even could be repaired. (You don’t.)


As a minority of all the radiometric results published in the scientific literature everywhere.

As far as I’ve been able to ascertain, anomalous results such as your “LIVE observed events less than 100 years ago being dated hundreds of millions of years” account for about 5-10% of the data at most. Even if the figure were as high as 50%, you’re still talking about a signal to noise ratio of 1:1.

If radiometric dating really were so unreliable that it couldn’t distinguish between thousands of years and billions of years, consilience would be rare. We would see it in perhaps as few as 1% of samples, if that. Furthermore, the divergences between different dating methods would be on the scale of several orders of magnitude, so you would see U-Pb dating, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Lu-Hf and so on giving results all over the map from a few thousand years right through to hundreds of billions or even trillions. Every. Single. Time.

As for cherry picking, to get the levels of consilience that we see, scientists would have to be throwing away 99% of their radiometric results. Radiometric dating a single sample costs thousands of dollars. There are tens of thousands of radiometric results published in the scientific literature every year. You’re talking about billions of dollars being squandered on wholescale systematic scientific fraud every year, much of it at taxpayers’ expense. Where are the accountants and auditors in our universities creating a stink about such a colossal waste of money? Where are the other scientists working in other fields creating a stink about losing out on funding to such a charade? Where are the documents blowing the gaff about it on Wikileaks? And in any case, the problem could easily be fixed by requiring all radiometric tests to be pre-registered. Why aren’t YECs campaigning for such a requirement?


Guys, the topic of this thread is geology - the Grand Staircase in particular. Don’t let Sal do his Gish Gallop off into the bushes of radiometric dating to dodge the geologic evidence. Hold his feet to the fire on geology, it will be good for him in the long run. :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like

Sorry, that is my fault, I prodded Sal on answering my earlier point on radiometric dating, so don’t blame him for the sidetrack.

But you are right, let’s talk a bit more about geology. That is much more interesting anyway than all that boring Physics!

I dunno. The title refers to something Sal hasn’t managed yet, his visualization. Take that away, and it’s about the age of the geologic column, and radiometric dating seems highly on topic for that.

He had questions about the parallel nature of the layering, about the sediment source areas and about sand pillars. I tried to answer two of those, haven’t yet delved into the third.

Yes, which leaves lots of room for confirmation bias against the dates that were not consistent with the narrative.

I saw evidence of that in racemization dating, which got strangely “discredited” when non-racemic materials were found in the Silurian.

So whatever you think, I have reasons for my deep suspicions based on published data that has been dumped into obscurity, but I which I hope to bring forward in due time.

Many people have. He ignores almost everything anyone posts.

1 Like

Is this not paranoia? You are in effect accusing scientists of a vast conspiracy to fudge the data. Are you at least willing to say so explicitly?

Ok, let me think on that. Thanks for the reply. I have more thoughts on that as that is something I want in my vizualization.

Thanks for that reply too. But I’m afraid I doubt very much that you actually will think on it or ever get back to us, as with anything that would destroy your YEC ideas if you managed to understand it deeply.


Read the rest of my post, Sal.

As I said, the “confirmation bias” that you are proposing would have to be throwing out a million dollars’ worth of data for every published result. Tens of thousands of times a year right across the world. In many cases by graduate students or even undergraduates. Without so much as a whimper being said about it even on Wikileaks.

Conspiracy theories on that scale simply do not happen. It’s as simple as that.


Borrowing from one of my posts in a different thread . . .

What features would a geologic feature need in order to falsify Young Earth Creationism? Another way to put it is to ask what criteria you use to determine if a geologic formation is young and/or caused by a recent global flood.

What is the ratio of consilient to non-consilient dates?

What is absurd about sediments settling out of water and deserts having sand dunes?

I suppose it doesn’t matter. Sal will ignore / run from any scientific evidence which contradicts his YEC beliefs no matter what the science topic.

Sal - one source for the deposits found in the Grand Canyon was what we now call the Appalachian mountains, which were once much larger/taller than they are today. Limestone is formed underwater, generally from millions of years of accumulated shells of sea creatures.

The GC is one of the most intensively studied regions on the planet, and I think you could find most of the information you seek by spending a little time in the library. You might want to seek a University library with a decent geology collection.

One more detail the YEC models do not consider are the breccia pipes of Horseshoe mesa, and the Last Chance Mine.