Norman: How does that PROVE what you are claiming, Mike? In other words, how do you know that the Colorado River basin isn't a mix of rocks of widely varying ages?
It was the same rock flow. Which means of all the same type of rock, and that portion was created at the same time. The same rock created at the same time had wildly different ages.
So this is how it proves it;
The so-called ‘model’1 potassium-argon (K-Ar) ‘ages’ calculated for each of the 27 amphibolite samples from Grand Canyon ranged from 405.1 ± 10 Ma (million years) to 2,574.2 ± 73 Ma. That is a six-fold difference, for samples that should be of similar age.
Note that the error estimates (the ± numbers) are small compared with the age. They are also small compared with the variation in ages between samples. This means that the laboratory testing was precise. However, as the results show, the error estimates say nothing about the accuracy of the ‘ages’ of the rock samples.
Furthermore, the seven samples from the small amphibolite unit near Clear Creek, which should be even closer in age because they belong to the same metamorphosed basalt lava flow, yielded K-Ar model ‘ages’ ranging from 1,060.4 ± 28 Ma to 2,574.2 ± 73 Ma
This document shows varying K-Ar dating results across multiple lava flows in the Grand Canyon, 16 lava dams containing a total of 63 lava flows. Some of the lava dam K-Ar ages were judged to be statically reliable and others were not. In this paper, Dalrymple describes some of the issues that can come up with K-Ar dating that can lead to spurious results. And he discusses why some of the derived dam ages were considered statistically unreliable. This document paints a much more complete and clearer picture of radiometric dating that often includes cases of concordant and discordant data. And, when there is discordant data, scientists try to understand possible reasons for the discordance to further refine and improve the methods.
And again, Mike, "prove" is a word used by mathematicians, not scientists.
Yeah, i'm not a "young-earth" creationist, technically because I am open to what happened in history not necessarily being the "young earth" version of events. I am a creationist, I believe God created life on earth. The details of when it happened, or if there are natural elements, left to do the job for God, I am open to that, I just 100% don't accept abiogenesis and evolution.
The problem is if you find a dinosaur with young tissue in rocks that are aged to be many millions of years old, about 65 myo, then obviously if it is impossible for the dino-fossil to be that old because of measurable decay of collagen, then that means the rocks the dino are in are also young, and all the other fossils in that era of rock.
To compound/corroborate this evidence, C14 tests shows that all such testing for dinosaur fossils have given ages of about 25 to 35,000 years.
You are correct that because these are historical hypotheses, they can compete. Technically there isn't going to be one all-powerful knock-out punch either way, but to think it is about the amount of evidence can be the fallacy of exclusion.
Nobody is looking for youthful tissue in dino horns or bones, because of observer-bias. You tend to forget, the money and backing isn't going into the type of science that might favour youth. That alone by analogy, if we compare evolution science with creation findings, is like comparing how well backed a very rich person is, with billionaire parents, compared a person not backed by any real funding.
Automatically that is going to mean that everything the billionaire does because of his funding, is going to be established. But if youthful evidence is banned from science, with no funding or no support, that will make it look amateurish.
What you have to ask yourself is this; are they looking for youth in bones? Secondly, had science backed research into youth and long ages hadn't had all this work, who do you think would now be appealing to the more thoroughly researched science?
I think you know the answer - I would be the one saying, "the majority of the evidence shows youth", if science had taken the position to back youth not age.
So it's important to remember that. We have a 150 year history of uniformity-research. What have they researched for a competing hypothesis?
So the "bias" is well ensconced in evolutionary academia, so it's a bit amusing you say creationists are biased.
One of the first scientific attempts to determine the age of the earth was done by Lord Kelvin...who estimated the earth to be ~20 to 40 million years old. He did this by using the heat equations to calculate the amount of energy required to create the earth and the resulting heat and then the amount of time required for the heat to dissipate down to the current temperature. But, the thing is, Mike, the scientific community didn't latch onto those values as absolute truth, e.g., as their "6,000 years" and conclude that any method or test that challenges those values must immediately by debunked. In fact, just the opposite happened....as our knowledge of the physical world expanded and new methods became available, age estimates of the earth changed numerous times. And, it may change again. For young-earth creationists, a 6,000 year old earth has been a cornerstone of their faith for thousands of years....and it will not and cannot be adjusted or challenged. That's fine, but when it comes to actual science, I find the first approach far more appealing.
An another case in point, compare our two papers (yours from Snelling and mine from Dalrymple)...which one do you find to be more biased??