Lava dating place the dating game spiess
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.
He didn't pretend that the age of the flows was the expected result, and he didn't make the false claim that his result was sufficient to call all isochron dating into question.
This is a transparent attempt to place a GSA "seal of approval" on Austin's unsupportable The length of the medium is not a legitimate excuse for a blatant falsehood (the claim that Austin set out to "test" Rb/Sr dating) or for the shenanigans involving the sampling technique versus the expected meaning of the resulting age.
The sediments above the angular unconformity must be younger than the sediments below it.Even young-earth creationists would agree with this relative sequencing of events.They would argue for a much shorter absolute timescale than mainstream geologists would accept, but the relative sequence is agreed upon by all parties. Steven Austin, chairman of the Geology Department at the Institute for Creation Research, claimed (1992) that he had derived an isochron for the plateau flows, which indicates an age of about 1.3 billion years.The ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project does not strike a telling blow against the reliability of isochron dating.The conditions which caused the "false isochron" in this case are fairly well-understood, and easy to avoid by proper sample selection.