Dating Methodology and its Associated Assumptions

There are some obvious errors and omissions here.Firstly if 1) is true we don't need 2) to be true. We can just count the number of remaining "parent" atoms. We don't even need to consider "daughter" atoms.If 2) is true we don't need 1) to be true because we can calculate the original number of parent atoms from the number of "daughter" atoms and the remaining "parent" atoms.What is more isochron methods account for the number or "daughter" atoms in the original state so we don't need 1) OR 2) to be true.3) is true but can be checked for by inspecting the rock for signs of chemical or thermal alteration or other damage that might affect the results.4) is true but there is as yet no relible evidence of a change in radioctive decay rates nor any plausible mechanism by which the decay rates would change significantly and still give consistent results over all the different methods of radiometric dating.[Added in edit]
Here is the t.o. Isochron dating FAQ
Isochron Dating
Isochron dating itself represents a check on 3) because the samples usually will not fall on the ascending straight line required for a true isochron if the samples have been affected in this way.This message has been edited by PaulK, 09-03-2004 11:33 AM

Add the Dating of the Exodus thread as another example of Willowtree repeating someone elses assertions, while being unable to defend them.

And now you're telling less than the truth.Milton has an extreme hatred of evolution.He's no "insider" - just a journalist writing on a subject he does not understand. Much of what he says is uncritically copied from creationist sources. Yet he couldn't even manage to accurately represent the t.o FAQ on transitional fossils in his "critique". Nor could he see the quite obvious differences between a thylacine and wolf skull even though they were visible even in the low-quality line drawings in his book.All this has been shown on this group. What you get from Milton is not "unbiased evidence" -just extremely biased opinions.

Willowtree, Genesis 38:28 does not mention a "Red Hand" emblem.So your quote does not support your claim. Therefore denying your claim shows no lack of integrity. You would have to show very strong evidence before you could honestly make such an accusation.Quiote frankly your whole attitude seems to be that anyone who dares to disagree with you must be slandered. I am amazed that the admins have tolerated your vile behaviour this far.