Age dating of basalt exclusive dating nyc
That data is lacking from Austin's published works.Besides, this line of argument does not address the fact that the result is a known and expected behavior of isochrons.Since I couldn't get permission to reproduce the claims verbatim, I will summarize the creationist claims, and respond to them here.I would recommend that future prospective critics attempt to deal directly and explicitly with the three items in the "criticisms" section above.An angular unconformity is the result of tilting and eroding of the lower layers before the upper ones are deposited.These tilted and eroded layers are Precambrian in age (blue in Figure 1, above).The "type" of rock is not sufficient to establish the samples being cogenetic.Since the stratigraphic evidence indicates that the flows did not all occur at the same time, the case could only be made by other isotopic analysis such as taking internal isochrons of the individual flows.
At the GSA meeting, Austin discussed the inheritance of a mantle age.
The attempt to abuse the meaning of a single contrived date -- which was produced only by a sample selection geared to dating a different event, and only for samples whose results were known by Austin in advance -- says a lot more about the level of competence or honesty in this creation "science" research program, than it says about the validity of isochron dating methods.
Even if given credit for discovering this case (which he clearly doesn't deserve, as his use of Leeman's data proves), Austin has only managed to "call into question" a particular sampling technique.
The walls of the canyon are mostly cut into horizontal rock layers of Paleozoic age (green in Figure 1, above).
There is an angular unconformity at the bottom of the Paleozoic layers.
But the Cardenas Basalt cannot be younger than the plateau flows, due to the geological relationships discussed in the first section of this document.