ISOCHRONS AND EVOLUTIONARY DATING by Dr. Steven Austin As the media constantly tells us, t
ISOCHRONS AND EVOLUTIONARY DATING by Dr. Steven Austin
As the media constantly tells us, the Grand Canyon is supposed to
be "Exhibit A" proving evolution. But have those Grand Canyon
rocks really been proved to be billions of years old? Is the
media giving us the correct story? I wrote the paper "Grand
Canyon Lava Flows: A Survey of Isotopic Dating Methods" (Institute
for Creation Research Impact No. 178, April 1988) to summarize
some of my recent work on potassium-argon (K-Ar) and rubidium-
strontium (Rb-Sr) dating of Grand Canyon rocks.
The Rb-Sr isochron date of 1.1 billion years for the deeply buried
Cardenas Lavas (Precambrian) has been considered by evolutionary
geologists to be the "most secure" isotopic date yet made for
Grand Canyon strata. Several geologists have asked me if such a
well documented date can be questioned. They observe that the
isochron method appears to internally validate the assumptions of
the dating method which creationists have criticised. They even
note that the Rb-Sr isochron of 1.1 billion years for the Cardenas
Lavas overturned five K-Ar dates which gave a younger age (K-Ar
ages of 760 to 860 million years were published for the Cardenas
Lavas before the Rb-Sr isochron was generated).
I decided two years ago to generate my own "isochron dates" from
published isotopic ratios and elemental analyses. My computers
are able to do the data manipulation to plot isochrons. I have
started the project by working on Grand Canyon lava flows. The
Western Grand Canyon lava flows (Pleistocene) flowed over the rim
of the Grand Canyon and blocked the Colorado River. These lava
flows lie on the surface and look as fresh as recent Hawaiian
flows. These Western Grand Canyon flows yielded a good "isochron
date" of 1.5 billion years, making them among the "oldest" strata
yet dated in the Grand Canyon. This isochron is shown in my
recent article (ICR Impact No. 178, April 1988).
Other geologists and I have referred to these erroneous dates as
"fictitious isochrons." These, I believe, cast severe doubts on
some of the "accepted" isochron dates. Fictitious isochrons need
to be recognized and discussed.
The subject of radiometric dating can become very theoretical and
may get to be a "can of worms" in a hurry. However, I do invite
your comments on my short article and want to discuss various
methods of dating Grand Canyon rocks. I recommend that we start
by keeping the discussion on real rocks from the Grand Canyon and
limit our discussion to the popular methods used by the media and
geologists to date Grand Canyon rocks. But please--no philosophy,
religious arguments, theoretical models, cosmological speculation
or polemics! I'm only interested in the facts.
You may obtain a free copy of Impact No. 178 by writing me at ICR,
P.O. Box 2667, El Cajon, CA 92021.
This occult propaganda and lies is from:
Missouri Association for Creation, Inc.
405 North Sappington Road
Glendale, MO 63122-4729
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank