"The volume of ice in a glass of water is twice as much as the volume of water. How long did it take from the time the glass was filled until now to reach the current state?
"Is it possible to answer that question without more information?
"Is that question any different than this question?:
"Black rock was examined that had been formed as a result of lava flow from a volcanic eruption. There is twice as much Potassium as there is Argon in the sample. How long did it take to reach the current state?
"How about responding to it now?
"Here’s what I say: Neither can be answered without making MANY assumptions....that fact makes dating methods subject to bias. Any date assigned (by an evo or a crevo) is unknowable and therefore wishful thinking."
from 1,734 Mr. Silverback:"Can you give him the age of the rock he cited? Yes or no?"
I'm no geologist or chemist, and would not presume to calculate an age for this example.
But fellows, if it were a test question on a geology exam, the student would be told something along the lines that analysis of the material showed it had (or had not) reached a "blocking temperature," which did (or did not) reset its "atomic clock." If the clock was reset, then the rock's age could be simply a function of the material's decay rate.
Bottom line here is that schaef21's point could be somewhat valid -- if he were saying that the rock's age cannot be calculated without "more information." But instead, schaef21 uses the words "without making many assumptions," which he then claims must necessarily bias the results. Of course, I don't agree.
Here's that article again. Take some time to read it:
You could have saved yourself some time by just typing “No, I can’t.”