Recently Gill (1996) has posted into the creationist literature that is technical claiming that most Rb-Sr isochron ages could be explained away as meaningless “false” correlations. The abstract reads:
A mathematical response is presented for the regular event of false of “fictious” Rb-Sr isochrons. The explanation for these inconsistencies is a easy linear regression procedure is mathematically invalid if a couple of separate factors influence just one reliant adjustable. In several data sets for the “isochron” procedure, there are two main separate factors involved. First, you have the desired relation that is radioactive the quantity of the rubidium moms and dad and also the strontium daughter. 2nd, considering that the atomic strontium concentration into the examples is a adjustable, then your isotopic Sr-87 content of this atom sic can also be an adjustable. In such a situation, the “Isochron” regression is mathematically invalid, therefore both its slope and intercept are erroneous.
We see four major difficulties with the creationist claims — enough to invalidate the creationist paper instead of (because Gill desires) the Rb-Sr dating procedure.
1. Math chemistry that is versus
The behavior of isochron information is constrained in 2 methods — both in what is mathematically possible in the plot, along with in what is actually feasible provided the chemistry associated with the elements that are relevant. Gill’s theoretical therapy concentrates solely on mathematical behavior, while ignoring the chemistry that is underlying. It consequently operates the possibility of reaching false conclusions by presuming behaviors that are mathematically feasible — but chemically not likely or impossible.