Isochron dating methods forummember phpu
An excellent semi-technical introduction to isotope dating methods (with an emphasis on isochron and Pb isotope dating) is available in Dalrymple (1991). It is accessible to those who haven't studied the field, and has even received reasonably positive review in creationist literature. Some Comments and Observations on Steven Austin's "Grand Canyon Dating Project".
Isochron methods are introduced in a section titled "Age-Diagnostic Diagrams" (pp. For those who don't mind wading through a college-level textbook on isotope dating, I also highly recommend Faure (1986).
However, the methods must be used with care -- and one should be cautious about investing much confidence in the resulting age...
especially in absence of cross-checks by different methods, or if presented without sufficient information to judge the context in which it was obtained.
However, let us remember the 3 main assumptions behind all radiometric dating methods: 1) The original starting material: We have no clue how much of A-B there was to start with originally.
You can't chime in unfortunately because its between me and him. He tried to say there was no contamination because there were many concordant samples used.
Your opponent is refuting your claims at the end of the posts that the dating systems are flawed by referencing isochron dating I believe.
2) That decay rates are constant: You have already shown the links to disprove this assumption so you are off to a good start.
Some types (technically known as ‘isotopes’) of ‘parent’ elements such as uranium, thorium, potassium and rubidium are said to be radioactive because the nuclei of the atoms are unstable, resulting in readjustments between the ‘particles’ (primarily neutrons and protons) in the nuclei with time.Yet most people really don’t know much about these radioactive dating methods.So slick and convincing are the presentations of results, particularly in glossy media and museum propaganda, that no one even bothers to question how these dating methods work, what assumptions are involved, and how reliable they are. The answers are not only instructive, but demolish the evolutionary geologist’s case for a 4.5-billion-year old earth.In my opinion/experience, intelligent evolutionists with a knowledge of scientific-minutia, will usually use that knowledge to try and tie your hands as they already know you are not interested in that level of detail,..Rather than become a scientist by having to earn a PHD, instead we have to realize that the more realistic picture is that we have two amateurs debating the issue, even if the evolutionist does have some more knowledge because the chances are, he is only learning enough to win him the debate. That is, don't focus on debating the scientific minutia and PRETENDING to have knowledge that you don't have, but rather use reasoning and cleverness to refute the claim by showing some unavoidable facts.