Friday, 9 July 2010

Debunking Corner - Hudson Valley Geologist dissects Snelling

More here;

What's puzzling, however, is in Snelling's other life as a mainstream geologist (see The Skeptic article referenced above), he also wrote things like:

The oldest rocks in the Koongarra area, domes of granitoids and granitic gneiss, are of Archaean age [older than 2500 million years]. The Archaean rocks are mantled by Lower Proterozoic [younger than 2500 million years] metasediments: all were later buried deeply, heavily folded and, between 1870 and 1800 million years ago, were subjected to regional metamorphism at considerable temperatures and pressures. 

Why would he say the ages are completely unreliable in a YEC publication and then speak of almost 2 billion-year-old rocks in a mainstream publication? The YEC publication even cites (Snelling, 1990) the mainstream publication in the References list without comment. It's bizzare. That's why I called him "ethically-challenged."

Anyway, let's take Snelling at his word (at least in the YEC journal paper) and agree that the Koonarra radiometric ages are not reliable because it was an open system.  That certainly doesn't support Snelling's grand conclusion at the end of the paper that:

Creationists should therefore not be intimidated by claims that U-Th-Pb radiometric “dating” has “proved” the presumed great antiquity of the earth, and the strata and fossils of the so-called geological column.

That's just nuts!  He cites one geologic deposit in Australia where groundwater alteration may have occurred making it difficult to get an accurate U-Pb radiometric age of mineralization and then extrapolates to tens of thousands of U-Pb radiometric ages from all over the Earth (and meteorites too) saying they have to be unreliable as well - and he's ignoring the K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, etc. radiometric ages as well which all use different minerals and isotopes and techniques to derive ages.
There's no need for a detailed rebuttal of the paper (it doesn't even deserve a general rebuttal since it's an old paper in a creationist "journal" with no credibility to start with).  The basic premise of the paper is flawed - one example of where U-Pb radiometric dating may not be appropriate (arguably and not even a big deal) throws out centuries of geologic science.  Complete and utter nonsense.

1 comment:

  1. And you sound suprised!

    This seems to be typical of cDesign 'experts', they say one thing in their professional life, another to their devoted disciples.

    Oh, and make grand sweeping statements.

    My biggest lament is that their believers lap it up, and worse, repeat it endlessly.