Your claim that all dating methods agree with each other is false. It is the result of very selective acceptance of dating results. Most of the time discordant results are never published, only the results which agree, which then appears to others as if there are no such discordant results. One rare example of discordant results being published, likely because of the extreme publicity of the source and paucity of material, is moon rocks.

".. the age of the same rock measured by different scientists using different techniques varied widely."
"Sample 10017 was dated by five different sources with nineteen different results."
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v12i9f.htm

Here is the full table. Over 90% of the results do not match the supposed age of the moon.
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/ages.htm

Good point. Those people who selectively review the results of objective research published in major scientific journals aren't accounting for all the evidence published on "science against evolution .com"

You've shown us a great demonstration about how to avoid selectively choosing evidence, and shown us how to objectively review the evidence. If only more people in this thread were as intellectually honest, I'm sure it would be a better place.

rodcarty wrote:Your claim that all dating methods agree with each other is false. It is the result of very selective acceptance of dating results. Most of the time discordant results are never published, only the results which agree, which then appears to others as if there are no such discordant results.

Blind assertion. If they're never published, how do you know there are a lot of discordant results? This is just some personal hope story you creationists run around and tell each other all the time.
"One day, one day I tell you all those damned evolutionists will be shown wrong!!" You've been telling yourself this for 180 years now. It's the longest running falsehood in creationism.

rodcarty wrote:One rare example of discordant results being published, likely because of the extreme publicity of the source and paucity of material, is moon rocks.

".. the age of the same rock measured by different scientists using different techniques varied widely."
"Sample 10017 was dated by five different sources with nineteen different results."
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v12i9f.htm

Here is the full table. Over 90% of the results do not match the supposed age of the moon.
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/ages.htm

Don't be silly. Most of those results aren't given with error ranges, and most of them lie pretty close to those 4.5 billion years. You don't have to have laser presicion to measure the length of a road, approximate ages are fine, especially if you can get a large amount of approximate ages and average them.

Then you can do statistics on your results to detect outliers also. Did you know there's a statistical test for outliers?
I should also add the discussion in the first link is a bit silly. They complain about a "mysterious" impact event. Have you taken a loot at the moon lately? Was it magically created with craters on it?

Creationist case dismissed.

Welcome back, Rod. Long time no see!

Old result tables from an obviously biased source.
Come on.
You can do better than that.
The ONLY reason this argument exists at all, is because modern Fundamental Literalists NEED to support the literal interpretation of a set of ancient texts which had no clue how the universe worked, and in fact were appropriated from the Sumerian creation myth systems, and had no intention or notion of "historical accuracy" even in that culture.

Here's an article by a Christian Physicist, which debunks the Creationist dating claims. They ARE consistent, and here are some examples.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

I am skeptical of the claims of radiometric dating for 3 reasons:

1. We don't know the initial proportions of the isotopes we are comparing.
2. We are not allowing for changes to those proportions to occur other than through radioactive decay.
3. We assume a constant decay rate.

Take Newton's first law of motion: v= u + at

v= final velocity of object .
u= initial velocity.
a= acceleration of body.
t= time.

If we know v, if we know a and if we know u, it is possible to calculate t:

t= v-u/a

But what if we just assumed u to be 0 and a to have been constant? What u was much greater than zero and a had been much greater than it was when v was measured? We would necessarily get a much smaller value for t.

All measurements thus far conducted demonstrate constant decay rate and well-understood processes.

If you want to "doubt" these, you need to 1) propose an alternative system, other than gee, my position would be so much easier to defend if x were so, and 2) you need to show that there's actual evidence that your alternative system is in fact taking place.

Otherwise you're just wishing up a tree.

Weaver wrote:All measurements thus far conducted demonstrate constant decay rate and well-understood processes.

If you want to "doubt" these, you need to 1) propose an alternative system, other than gee, my position would be so much easier to defend if x were so, and 2) you need to show that there's actual evidence that your alternative system is in fact taking place.

Otherwise you're just wishing up a tree.

Wrong. The initial proportions of isotopes are based on evidence from meteorites and not from the earth itself. There are processes which can cause the depletion of material other than radioactive decay. It is known that decay rates do vary.

Atheistoclast wrote:

Weaver wrote:All measurements thus far conducted demonstrate constant decay rate and well-understood processes.

If you want to "doubt" these, you need to 1) propose an alternative system, other than gee, my position would be so much easier to defend if x were so, and 2) you need to show that there's actual evidence that your alternative system is in fact taking place.

Otherwise you're just wishing up a tree.

It is known that decay rates do vary.

Oh, interesting, where did you read that? Could you share the papers?

Atheistoclast wrote:

Weaver wrote:All measurements thus far conducted demonstrate constant decay rate and well-understood processes.

If you want to "doubt" these, you need to 1) propose an alternative system, other than gee, my position would be so much easier to defend if x were so, and 2) you need to show that there's actual evidence that your alternative system is in fact taking place.

Otherwise you're just wishing up a tree.

Wrong. The initial proportions of isotopes are based on evidence from meteorites and not from the earth itself. There are processes which can cause the depletion of material other than radioactive decay. It is known that decay rates do vary.

Before we go down these rabbit holes, you have read the OP by Cali which addresses some of this, right? I mean, I wouldn't want to go around on something that's already been cleared up ...

And I'm sure you have some peer-reviewed science to support your claims, right?

Weaver wrote:

Atheistoclast wrote:

Weaver wrote:All measurements thus far conducted demonstrate constant decay rate and well-understood processes.

If you want to "doubt" these, you need to 1) propose an alternative system, other than gee, my position would be so much easier to defend if x were so, and 2) you need to show that there's actual evidence that your alternative system is in fact taking place.

Otherwise you're just wishing up a tree.

Wrong. The initial proportions of isotopes are based on evidence from meteorites and not from the earth itself. There are processes which can cause the depletion of material other than radioactive decay. It is known that decay rates do vary.

Before we go down these rabbit holes, you have read the OP by Cali which addresses some of this, right? I mean, I wouldn't want to go around on something that's already been cleared up ...

And I'm sure you have some peer-reviewed science to support your claims, right?

I don't dispute the math. I dispute the assumptions. And, yes, I do have peer-reviewed articles in support of my skepticism.

Atheistoclast wrote:

Weaver wrote:

Atheistoclast wrote:

Weaver wrote:All measurements thus far conducted demonstrate constant decay rate and well-understood processes.

If you want to "doubt" these, you need to 1) propose an alternative system, other than gee, my position would be so much easier to defend if x were so, and 2) you need to show that there's actual evidence that your alternative system is in fact taking place.

Otherwise you're just wishing up a tree.

Wrong. The initial proportions of isotopes are based on evidence from meteorites and not from the earth itself. There are processes which can cause the depletion of material other than radioactive decay. It is known that decay rates do vary.

Before we go down these rabbit holes, you have read the OP by Cali which addresses some of this, right? I mean, I wouldn't want to go around on something that's already been cleared up ...

And I'm sure you have some peer-reviewed science to support your claims, right?

I don't dispute the math. I dispute the assumptions. And, yes, I do have peer-reviewed articles in support of my skepticism.

I'd like to read them, could you share?

Kazaman wrote:
I'd like to read them, could you share?

Here are just a few to wet your appetite. There is more to come.

Effect of pressure on the decay rate of 7Be

http://www.earth.sinica.edu.tw/~huh/Pub ... 63-167.pdf

Searches for solar-influenced radioactive decay anomalies using spacecraft RTGs

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 0512001004

EVIDENCE FOR TIME-VARYING NUCLEAR DECAY DATES:EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR NEW PHYSICS

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.1470.pdf

Atheistoclast wrote:

Kazaman wrote:
I'd like to read them, could you share?

Here are just a few to wet your appetite. There is more to come.

Effect of pressure on the decay rate of 7Be

http://www.earth.sinica.edu.tw/~huh/Pub ... 63-167.pdf

Searches for solar-influenced radioactive decay anomalies using spacecraft RTGs

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 0512001004

EVIDENCE FOR TIME-VARYING NUCLEAR DECAY DATES:EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR NEW PHYSICS

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.1470.pdf

Whet.

Thanks.

Atheistoclast wrote:It is known that decay rates do vary.

In a very long time, they statistically are quite predictable.

and the variation is how much?

Enough to make 4.5 billion look like 6000?

It's funny how when creotards see the slightest hints of something going their way, they instantly swallow it as The Truthtm(and blow it massively out of proportion), but at the same time they deride science and insinuate giant international conspiracies when it doesn't go their way.

Rumraket wrote:It's funny how when creotards see the slightest hints of something going their way, they instantly swallow it as The Truthtm(and blow it massively out of proportion), but at the same time they deride science and insinuate giant international conspiracies when it doesn't go their way.

I am an iconoclast...I like things which challenge the accepted view:

The widely held view that nuclear decay rates, along with nuclear masses, are fundamental constants of nature has been challenged recently by reports from various groups of periodic variations in nuclear decay rates

1. J.H. Jenkins and E. Fischbach, Astropart. Phys. 31, 407 (2009)
2. J.H. Jenkins et al, Astropart. Phys. 32, 42 (2009)
3. E. Fischbach et al, Space Sci. Rev. 145, 285 (2009)
4. P.A. Sturrock et al, Astropart. Phys. 34, 121 (2010)
5. Javorsek II et al, Astropart. Phys. 34, 173 (2010)
6. P.A. Sturrock et al, Sol. Phys. 267, 251 (2010)
7. P.A. Sturrock, E. Fischbach and J.H. Jenkins, Sol. Phys. In Press, (2011)
8. P.A. Sturrock et al, ApJ In Press, (2011)

MIAOWWWWWW!!!!!

It's one thing to be iconoclastic, it's quite another to pedal pseudointellectual and pseudoscientific dribble.

EDIT: Not to say the studies you posted are invalid, but that they don't support the position you think they do.

Kazaman wrote:It's one thing to be iconoclastic, it's quite another to pedal pseudointellectual and pseudoscientific dribble.

EDIT: Not to say the studies you posted are invalid, but that they don't support the position you think they do.

I haven't yet discussed my criticism of the other 2 assumptions used in the dating methods.