Figure 8 graphically illustrates how that, even when the calculated error margins are taken into account, the different radioisotope dating methods yield vastly different ‘ages’ that cannot be reconciled.
Some might want to dismiss these conflicting ‘dating’ results as an isolated abnormality.
Furthermore, the seven samples from the small amphibolite unit near Clear Creek, which should be even closer in age because they belong to the same metamorphosed basalt lava flow, yielded K-Ar model ‘ages’ ranging from 1,060.4 ± 28 Ma to 2,574.2 ± 73 Ma (figure 6).This includes two samples only 0.84 m (2 ft 9 in) apart that yielded K-Ar model ‘ages’ of 1,205.3 ± 31 and 2,574.2 ± 73 Ma. The crosses and ellipses are the data points (sample analyses) and their sizes are proportional to the ± analytical errors.This means that the laboratory testing was precise.However, as the results show, the error estimates say nothing about the accuracy of the ‘ages’ of the rock samples.Note that the quoted ‘age’ error margins (the ± values) are relatively small, due to the excellent statistical ‘fit’ of these isochrons to the data.
In spite of this, the three different radioisotope methods give three very different ‘ages’—that is the ‘isochron discordance’ is pronounced.But the quest to test this belief by sampling rocks from deep within Grand Canyon has found it is not true.Both laboratories use standard, best-practice procedures on state-of-the-art equipment and routinely provide accurate and repeatable measurements of the required isotopes.Note that the error estimates (the ± numbers) are small compared with the age.They are also small compared with the variation in ages between samples.Many people, including many scientists, accept these dates as absolute truth.