Atheistoclast wrote:

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.

Weaver wrote:I've noticed. So instead of nickel and dimeing us to death, how about you present a clear, concise, complete exposition of your claims, with appropriate references?

. Differential preservation of either potassium or argon in the crystallized rock as well as the evolution and character of the initial rockforming magma can contribute to real differences among K-Ar ratios from even a single lava flow. This, in turn, can lead to variations in age determinations of a crystallizing event. Another source of variation in radiometric age determinations is the difference in analytical methods and instruments used by various geochronology laboratories. Kuntz et al (1980) discuss these sources of age discrepancies for young basalts in detail. Variance among and within the subsamples and the overall laboratory-to-laboratory differences observed in this study supports previous conclusions that laboratory techniques contribute significantly to limits on the reproducibility for measurements of potassium and especially argon contents of young basalts. A small source of variation may be attributed to 'the use of different numerical values for electron and beta potassium decay constants. One laboratory in this study used 4.72 x 10-' per year for AO and 0.585 x 101- per year for e, whereas the other two laboratories used 4.96 x 10-10 per year and 0.681 x 10-'° per year for gfi and Xe, respectively. However, these differences caused negiligible variation among the reported ages. Isochron plots (Hayatsu and Carmichael, 1970; Shafiqullah and Damon, 1974) provide a method for estimating corrections for extraneous argon. This method must still rely on measured values for potassium and argon and does not explain the variance in these values.

Atheistoclast wrote:

Weaver wrote:I've noticed. So instead of nickel and dimeing us to death, how about you present a clear, concise, complete exposition of your claims, with appropriate references?

I prefer to tickle my opponents to death rather than just behead them with one fell swoop. In the meantime, you can read this Government report that discloses the uncertainty about Potassium-Argon dating methods:

Empirically Determined Uncertainty in Potassium-Argon Ages For Pilo-Pleistocene Basalts From Crater Flat, Nye County, Nevada

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0319/ML031950526.pdf

. Differential preservation of either potassium or argon in the crystallized rock as well as the evolution and character of the initial rockforming magma can contribute to real differences among K-Ar ratios from even a single lava flow. This, in turn, can lead to variations in age determinations of a crystallizing event. Another source of variation in radiometric age determinations is the difference in analytical methods and instruments used by various geochronology laboratories. Kuntz et al (1980) discuss these sources of age discrepancies for young basalts in detail. Variance among and within the subsamples and the overall laboratory-to-laboratory differences observed in this study supports previous conclusions that laboratory techniques contribute significantly to limits on the reproducibility for measurements of potassium and especially argon contents of young basalts. A small source of variation may be attributed to 'the use of different numerical values for electron and beta potassium decay constants. One laboratory in this study used 4.72 x 10-' per year for AO and 0.585 x 101- per year for e, whereas the other two laboratories used 4.96 x 10-10 per year and 0.681 x 10-'° per year for gfi and Xe, respectively. However, these differences caused negiligible variation among the reported ages. Isochron plots (Hayatsu and Carmichael, 1970; Shafiqullah and Damon, 1974) provide a method for estimating corrections for extraneous argon. This method must still rely on measured values for potassium and argon and does not explain the variance in these values.

Rumraket wrote:
lol, a report from 1983, completely unrelated to the subject of decay-rate constancy, speaking only about methodological issues in determining initial isotope contents in specific basalts from a specific area.

I see what you mean with tickling to death, I'm laughing alright.

rodcarty wrote: 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.

Atheistoclast wrote: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.

It conflicts with my belief in Sky Pixies
It conflicts with my belief in Sky Pixies
It conflicts with my belief in Sky Pixies

Atheistoclast wrote:

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:

Weaver wrote:Uh - no.

That's not how it works, you see. You aren't debating yourself - you can't simply put up something you think is interesting or good, then declare victory and refuse to engage in discussion.

Spearthrower wrote:

It conflicts with my belief in Sky Pixies
It conflicts with my belief in Sky Pixies
It conflicts with my belief in Sky Pixies

FIFY.

Atheistoclast wrote:

Weaver wrote:Uh - no.

That's not how it works, you see. You aren't debating yourself - you can't simply put up something you think is interesting or good, then declare victory and refuse to engage in discussion.

Who says I am refusing to engage? I am merely showing how isotopic concentrations can be altered other than through decay.

Atheistoclast wrote:

Weaver wrote:Uh - no.

That's not how it works, you see. You aren't debating yourself - you can't simply put up something you think is interesting or good, then declare victory and refuse to engage in discussion.

Who says I am refusing to engage?

Atheistoclast wrote:

Rumraket wrote:
lol, a report from 1983, completely unrelated to the subject of decay-rate constancy, speaking only about methodological issues in determining initial isotope contents in specific basalts from a specific area.

I see what you mean with tickling to death, I'm laughing alright.

We already settled the decay-rate issue. It has been demonstrated that they do vary. Now we have moved onto isotope proportions.

I am merely showing how isotopic concentrations can be altered other than through decay just as I pointed out that decay rates can vary. Maybe the dinosaurs were killed off by a blast of radioactivity as well as an asteroid.

Sityl wrote:All I can say, is at least Joe's bullshit posts are bumping Cali's excellent OP.

So,

Atheistoclast wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

It conflicts with my belief in Sky Pixies
It conflicts with my belief in Sky Pixies
It conflicts with my belief in Sky Pixies

FIFY.

I happen to think the Earth is old (millions), just not whether it is billions of years old. The biggest gripe I have with radiometric dating is that, even if it were 100% accurate, you aren't measuring the age of a planet, but the age of an atom.

Atheistoclast wrote:

Sityl wrote:All I can say, is at least Joe's bullshit posts are bumping Cali's excellent OP.

So,

And where is the butterfly these days?