Quartz Hydration Dating Method Announced
A press release from University of California, Irvine announced that Jonathon Ericson of UCI’s department of Environmental Health has “created a new method for determining the approximate age of many artifacts between 50,000 to 100,000 years old – a period for which other dating methods are less effective.”
The method depends on measuring the hydration layer that forms when a quartz crystal is cracked or fractured. “According to Ericson, quartz hydration can date objects that are between 100 and 1 million years old to within 20 to 35 percent of the object’s age.”
It can date objects, that is, provided you are willing to extrapolate known rates by three orders of magnitude into the unseen past. They never tell you the assumptions that go into these methods. The error limits give a false sense of accuracy. How come no one ever calls these claims on the carpet for committing the fallacy of extrapolation? Here’s why: the figures agree with their evolutionary assumptions.
Gauging how fast a hydration layer will form in a quartz crack and then extrapolating that measurement back to a million years, without knowing all possible geological, atmospheric and other physical conditions that might affect the rate, is unwarranted. Take three curves a mile long: an exponential, a logarithmic, and a damped oscillator. If all you could measure were a few millimeters, and if you didn’t know all sources of possible error, it would be a fallacy to claim you had established a linear relationship. Any good mathematical physics teacher would give you an F for assuming such a thing.
What’s more interesting about this article is what Ericson admits about the other dating methods: “Other dating methods are poor performers for this period or have questionable accuracy, and the most familiar dating methods are not effective at all. Radiocarbon dating is good for dating organic material up to around 50,000 years old, and potassium argon dating is good for dating mineral samples that are between 100,000 and 4.3 billion years old.” Interesting. On what grounds can processes in the unseen past be judged “poor performers?” Because they don’t give the “desired” results.
Evolutionists get away with extrapolation because they need the deep time the dating methods claim to provide, and the dating methods depend on evolutionary theory to decide if their methods are “poor performers” or not. Dating methods and evolutionary theory are like two trapeze artists clinging to each other, each one thinking the other guy is attached to the bar.