Recently Gill (1996) has posted in the creationist technical literature, claiming that most Rb-Sr isochron ages are explained away as meaningless “false” correlations. The abstract reads:
A mathematical response is presented when it comes to regular event of false of “fictious” Rb-Sr isochrons. The reason behind these inconsistencies is the fact that a simple linear regression procedure is mathematically invalid if a couple of independent factors influence an individual reliant variable. In lots of information sets for the “isochron” procedure, there’s two variables that are independent. First, there is certainly the desired radioactive connection between the total amount of the rubidium parent in addition to strontium daughter. 2nd, because the strontium that is atomic when you look at the examples is a variable, then your isotopic Sr-87 content for the atom sic can be an adjustable. The”Isochron” regression is mathematically invalid, so both its slope and intercept are erroneous in such a situation.
We see four major issues with the creationist claims — enough to invalidate the creationist paper instead of (because Gill desires) the Rb-Sr procedure that is dating.
1. Math chemistry that is versus
The behavior of isochron information is constrained in 2 means — both with what is mathematically feasible regarding the plot, in addition to with what is actually possible given the chemistry for the appropriate elements. Gill’s theoretical therapy concentrates solely on mathematical behavior, while ignoring the chemistry that is underlying. It consequently runs the possibility of reaching conclusions that are false assuming behaviors that are mathematically feasible — but chemically not likely or impossible.
Gill’s paper does get this type of bad presumption: that 86 Sr and 87 Sr concentrations are basically separate:
No such relationship that is simple once the divisor 86 Sris a adjustable.