However this web site ( convinced me that they could be useful as a reference tool, especially for those who attend the lectures, and I agreed.
I commented at the time that some of the quotes would not make sense without the lecture.
The problem is one of judicious geologic selection.", Ages Of Rocks, Planets & Stars, Stanley, Johns Hopkins, "In accepting a date, even with a plus-or-minus figure, we are assuming that a dated rock has remained a closed system - i.e., that it has neither lost nor received parent or daughter atoms from some other source. The problem of how much lead was around to begin with still remains...
If all of the age-dating methods (rubidium-strontium, uranium-lead and potassium-argon) had yielded the same ages, the picture would be neat. The lead ages, for example, have been consistently older... U., "If we assume that (1) a rock contained no Pb206 when it was formed, (2) all Pb206 now in the rock was produced by radioactive decay of U238, (3) the rate of decay has been constant, (4) there has been no differential leaching by water of either element, and (5) no U238 has been transported into the rock from another source, then we might expect our estimate of age to be fairly accurate.
A few (two) have charged that a small number of these quotes misrepresent the intent of the context.
When the charges were investigated, it was discovered, sure enough, if they had heard them used in the context of the lecture, they would have seen that the use was appropriate. When such individuals acknowledge facts contrary to their own interest, the credibility of their testimony increases dramatically.
It should be remembered that we are not quoting these individuals to imply that they are creationists. We want you to know that these individuals are devout evolutionists.