Yes, it's a version of the same sort of things I'm working on. A curriculum for a one time meeting
Personally, I'm coming to like the salt bed question if going for the best one shot. jar does it well right here Message 64.
If I may, I would suggest the section on K/T tektites in this essay )which I may have mentioned earlier):
quote:The K-T boundary is recorded in numerous sedimentary beds around the world. The Z-coal, the Ferris coal, and the Nevis coal in Montana and Saskatchewan all occur immediately above the K-T boundary. Numerous thin beds of volcanic ash occur within these coals just centimeters above the K-T boundary, and some of these ash beds contain minerals that can be dated radiometrically. Ash beds from each of these coals have been dated by 40Ar/39Ar, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, and U-Pb methods in several laboratories in the US and Canada. Since both the ash beds and the tektites occur either at or very near the K-T boundary, as determined by diagnostic fossils, the tektites and the ash beds should be very nearly the same age, and they are (Table 2).
There are several important things to note about these results. First, the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods were defined by geologists in the early 1800s. The boundary between these periods (the K-T boundary) is marked by an abrupt change in fossils found in sedimentary rocks worldwide. Its exact location in the stratigraphic column at any locality has nothing to do with radiometric dating it is located by careful study of the fossils and the rocks that contain them, and nothing more. Second, the radiometric age measurements, 187 of them, were made on 3 different minerals and on glass by 3 distinctly different dating methods (K-Ar and 40Ar/39Ar are technical variations that use the same parent-daughter decay scheme), each involving different elements with different half-lives. Furthermore, the dating was done in 6 different laboratories and the materials were collected from 5 different locations in the Western Hemisphere. And yet the results are the same within analytical error. If radiometric dating didn’t work then such beautifully consistent results would not be possible. Radiometric Dating Does Work! | National Center for Science Education
A flood can not sort species by an evolutionary history that supposedly never happened, and at the same time sort rocks by their K/Ar, U/Pb, and Rb/Sr ratios, all of which give the same date using different and independent dating methodologies.
Precisely. If I were in your shoes, I would stress how the convergence of multiple independent lines of evidence is what makes the evidence so compelling. Only real geologic processes over millions of years could produce a geologic record where dinosaurs are only found beneath rocks that are about 65 million years old as dated by the independent measurement of isotopes in those rocks.
As long as a rock meets the requirements for a given methodology, you could give rocks to scientists who are completely blinded as to where the rocks were found. They would still give you the same date. The convergence of fossil and age evidence is quite powerful.
Even between the dating methodologies there is a massive amount of convergence. Why would a Creator make rock 6,000 years ago so that the K/Ar, U/Pb, and Rb/Sr clocks all produced the same fake age? A Creator would need to put in extra effort just to make sure those ratios were just right in order to produce these convergent dates. There is no other mechanism other than radioactive decay that can make these ratios match up to one another like they do.
I know this guy and he will gallup me to death and I'll waste a TON of time and NONE of my responses will mean a thing to him because none of what he'll throw at me means a thing to him (meaning he doesn't even understand what he's throwing). I want to be responsive, but still be able to guide the conversation enough to stay on track.
I would put the ball back in his court. You could ask him what types of sediments or geologic features really would evidence an old Earth. Ask him what type of evidence is missing that an Old Earth would have. Ask him what type of features a geologic formation would need in order to falsify a recent global flood.
What you will often find is that YEC's have no recourse but to admit that their position is completely dogmatic and really doesn't consider the evidence. The follow up question to this is rather obvious. Why would you need to be dogmatic if the evidence were on your side?