Assumptions involved in scientific dating

Or, for example the group known as Amphibolites are metamorphic and would contain a lot of different minerals recrystallising or not (therefore setting the clock back to zero at different depths and temperatures) at different times. It would thus be expected to find a wide variety of dates when trying to date Amphibolites. Just ask any geochronologist!You do need to know something about rocks when trying to determine the age of rocks. Something a lot of people in the world seem to lack, yet think they know it all after reading a creationist piece.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This is a science thread. Genealogies of Thor really don't matter at all.

Err, you'll have to work more than 65 hours a week and also have to show hundreds of thousands of specialists from all over the world; each working 40 to 65 + hours a week, too, that they all are wrong. Good luck!

So, you can't refute people who actually know something about even some of those methods of dating at all?

Geologists don't. So, not even going to try and read the rest of your incoherent diatribe.

Of course. But some people don't realise that in metamorphic "rocks" different crystals form at different times, temperatures and pressures. You would expect lots of different ages in the same Amphiboles.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

I completely agree. However, creationists think that it is assumption. It isn’t.
The size of the Pb 2+ ions ensure that they can’t be incorporated into the tetrahedral crystal lattice of zircon (or the polymorphs of zircon). They are simply too big.However, U2+ fit in nicely. So, at the formation of tetrahedric zircon crystals, we know that the Pb incorporated into the crystal lattice will essentially be zero.Another Pb isotope, Pb6+, is not found in tetrahedral crystals for obvious reasons. They can't do tetrahedral crystals for the same obvious reasons. In chemistry the words "tetra" and "hexa" mean something...It’s not an assumption. It’s basic chemistry.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Actually, creationists found some samples with no measurable C14 at all, too. In their own "research". Point that out to Baumgardner and ask him to explain those zero-readings and then he vanishes in a poof of The Fluddy!Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.