Summations Only

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.

Actually, my beef is that you've got no idea what radiocarbon dating involves.

This one still is very, very funny. Is this guy really so uneducated or just not very bright?Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

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.

Since there never was a world-wide flood or either of the Biblical floods during the millions of years humans have exited I agree that it is silly. However some people do make such claims and thus this topic to allow those people to try to provide explanations.

I consider so called flood geology to be absurd and pathetically weak. For someone to toss it out in this day and age as something that represents creation believers is silly. Maybe 20 years ago...When I mentioned fast deposition I was not thinking about the flood at all. I was thinking about how layers may have been deposited in the 1600 years pre flood..which I consider rapid.As for the fountains of the deep, they would have existed since the garden of Eden I assume. Water came up as a mist to water the earth it says. Now if we had some areas where there was a fount of the deep, and water came up each day, we may have had pools, lakes, ponds, seas even...ebbing and flowing and affecting deposition.

There never was millions of years and we might as well say there was no post of yours either. One cannot wave away the flood by making bellicose statements of faith.

Since it is apparently OK to take a little pause and insult believers here, I guess I should join in and insult old age believers and God neutered science?

Tell us in your own words in a paragraph or so then. Show your stuff. Not sure why you think it is some secret, but hey break a leg.

Good grief, Schulz is turning in his grave.

...Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Of course there was not just millions but billions of years and ALL of the evidence supports that conclusion. It is not a statement of faith but rather a conclusion that can only be avoided by willful ignorance.And the evidence that there has never been a world-wide flood during the millions of years that the primates like humans have been around is also conclusive and can only be avoided by willful ignorance.But the purpose of this thread, once again, is to allow those people who think one of the Biblical Floods actually happened to explain some of the mechanics.If you do not think the separation of the non-chordate layers from the chordate layers was caused by the flood then you have nothing to add at this time. When we arrive at a layer you might think related to the flood then you can explain the model, method, process, procedure or mechanism that produced that specific layer.Understand though that nonsense like young earth will result in nothing except chuckles.

ok