Summations Only

Wrong. The only major radiometric method that can (but often isn't) be fooled by initial daughter product is K-Ar, and it's rarely used anymore. Ar-Ar has pretty much supplanted K-Ar.I'll be glad to explain why in a relevant thread. Or you could learn the basics from Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective (written by an evangelical Christian).You would be wise not to discuss radiometric dating when you obviously know noting about it.

In some cases, yes. In U-Pb dating of zircons, by far the most widely used method, no significant amount of initial lead is possible because zircon crystals strongly reject lead at solidification. There's plenty of uranium, because uranium fits right into the lattice substituting for zirconium. There's essentially no lead because lead doesn't fit chemically (wrong valence) or mechanically (too big).This is recognized explicitly by the RATE group, comprised of the only fanatical YECs who really understand what's going on. From Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay:

quote:

---

Samples 1 through 3 had helium retentions of 58, 27, and 17 percent. The fact that these percentages are high confirms that a large amount of nuclear decay did indeed occur in the zircons. Other evidence strongly supports much nuclear decay having occurred in the past (Humphreys, 2000, pp. 335—337). We emphasize this point because many creationists have assumed that old radioisotopic ages are merely an artifact of analysis, not really indicating the occurrence of large amounts of nuclear decay. But according to the measured amount of lead physically present in the zircons, approximately 1.5 billion years worthat today’s ratesof nuclear decay occurred. Supporting that, sample 1 still retains 58% of all the alpha particles (the helium) that would have been emitted during this decay of uranium and thorium to lead.

---

If there's significant lead in a zircon, it's the result of radioactive decay after solidification. The only way the dates can be significantly wrong is Accelerated Nuclear Decay (AND), and even the RATE group admits it has fatal flaws. Deal with it.Oh, and one reason Ar-Ar has supplanted K-Ar is that it can often produce a valid date even it there was daughter product incorporated at solidification ("excess argon"). For example, when the Berkeley Geochronological Center dated the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius in 79 AD it had excess argon.Many people who post here know this subject inside out. You do not.

We don't assume. The laws of physics and chemistry don't allow for such rapid solidification, and the biology of plants does not allow such rapid growth.Of course if all the laws of the Universe were totally different back then that would be a problem. You are welcome to produce evidence of this being so, and explain how life as we know it could exist under such conditions.

In the future I suggest that you not post such ignorant drivel. Dr. A is correct. In 14C dating, the ratio of 14C to the 12C (which is not produced by radioactive decay) is measured. The daughter product of the decay of 14C is 14N, which is not measured and does not enter into the method.

He's definitely solidly in the former camp, but he could be both. I always wonder at these clueless and ignorant YECs who charge in to set us all straight.

True. But we can dispose of it by analysis of evidence. We have done that. It didn't happen.There's a thing called a Point Refuted A Thousand Times or PRATT. Your posts are pure PRATTS. You don't understand the mainstream science and you don't understand common YEC claims. I suspect you are less than 14 years old.

You are free to say anything you want within the forum guidelines. If you step far outside those guidelines the mods will let you know.One of those rules is "Points should be supported with evidence and reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.". All your posts to date have been bare assertions. You have not addressed any of the rebuttals other than more unsupported assertions. A mod may bring that to your attention.I put you squarely in the ignorant camp because you have made it painfully and obviously clear that you have no clue about radiometric dating, geology, astrophysics, astronomy, chemistry, physics, or any other subject that has come up. I wasn't complimenting you but your ignorance is an established fact. Here we follow the evidence.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Many of us can do that, Coyote's probably the best.14C is a radioactive isotope. It continuously decays, but is continuously produced by cosmic rays hitting 14N atoms. All living things contain some 14C and 12C and 13C. The 14C decays but is supplemented by 14C in what that living thing eats or breathes. When the organism dies the 14C continues to decay but no new 14C replaces it. Since 12C does not decay, the 14C/12C ratio goes down with time. If the 14C/12C ratio when the organism died was the same as today that would give us a direct measure of the time of death. We have very strong evidence that the 14C/12C ratio has varied only by about 10% over the last 50,000 years or so, and a method for correcting the raw measurement to account for that variation. But if the Earth is only about 6,000 years old the 14C/12C ratio must have been wildly different back then and changing incredibly fast. If that had happened we should not see the rate of exchange of carbon between the various reservoirs that we do see today, and nobody has been able to produce any explanation for wild swings in 14C/12C other than magic.Dr. Aardsma, a very conservative Christian, has some good explanations at The Biblical Chronologist.

Yup. That's a new word for me.

Fossilization is incredibly rare, and far more common for marine organisms thatn for land organisms. Should Adam have actually existed, mainstream science predicts it is almost impossible for him to be fossilized and definitely impossible to identify any particular fossil as Adam. Unless it's stamped "2600 BC God (tm)".

Nope, it's a conclusion.We have lots of evidence that radioactive decay was constant in the past. Radioactive decay involves deeply fundamental properties of the universe and any significant change would leave many widespread traces in the present. Plus the fact that enough AND to make YEC possible would have melted at least the surface of the Earth and killed every living thing, including those on any ark, from radiation inside their bodies. The RATE group acknowledges this, and has no solution. See Heat and radiation destroy claims of accelerated nuclear decayMost (definitely not all) radiometric dating involves measuring the ratio of parent to daughter and other significant measurements and facts.Since it's obvious that all you know about radiometric dating is some vague notion of parent/daughter ratios, your questioning is of no significance. If you are interested, as I've already said, I'll be glad to explain in a relevant thread. The link I gave previously is a good starting point.

You can find brief introductions to what AND would leave behind at The Constancy of Constants and The Constancy of Constants, Part 2, by a well-known physicist.

I linked to a brief explanation of several. One really good one is the Oklo reactor, a natural nuclear reactor that could only exist when the ratio of 235U/238U was as it was 1.7 billion years ago, and the ratio of isotopes found show that the rate of decay was the same back then. See Natural nuclear fission reactor. You can't figure it out? Each radioactive decay produces heat and radiation. No matter how often it happens. Faster decay means more heat and more radiation. I explained it with calculations at Heat and radiation destroy claims of accelerated nuclear decay. You did claim some decay. I don't recall you claiming accelerated decay. I was pointing out that a group of all the YECs who really understand radiometric dating concluded that AND was the only possibility for YEC time scales to be true. The quote I provided proved it; lead in zircons can only be the result of radioactive decay, and either it represents real passage of time decaying at today's rates or it represents a much smaller passage of time decaying at a much higher rate. The latter "possibility" doesn't work because of the heat and radiation problem. As the RATE group pointed out, either it represents real passage of time with decay at today's rates or passage of much less time with decay at much higher rates. But when you make statements that only someone ignorant of radiometric dating could make, you reveal your ignorance. E.g. your claim that initial daughter product is a possible problem. In pretty much all major methods it isn't. You posted that because you don't know anything about radiometric dating.

Actually, isochron dating isn't used much in geochronology anymore, because of so many open systems that don't produce a date and largish uncertainties becasue of uncertainty in the half-lives. It's still very important in geochemistry. The action is in U-Pb and Ar-Ar.From 2005, via Dr. Ludwig of the Berkeley Geochronological Laboratory, a survey of the literature in that year or so: Shame he didn't distinguish between Ar-Ar and K-Ar.

Nope. Personal communication, an email that I don't have permission to share. It's also pretty difficult for me to get at in my email client from back then. Doesn't like Windows 10 but also has problems in an XP VM.