Summations Only

N_eView in peek mode to see how it's done.

Then your beliefs are unevidenced, false, ridiculous and occasionally meaningless ("out by exponential factors" does not in fact mean anything). Or to put it another way, you're a creationist.

By the same token, you make less sense than a neo-Nazi Holocaust denier, something which is obviously proved by the fact that they really do upset people, whereas your brand of self-satisfied ignorance is merely mildly irritating.

And here was I thinking the Bible story implied that humans got drowned in the Flood. But no, apparently when Genesis 6 says "men" it means "pelycosaurs". That would explain why there are no men found before or at the PT boundary. It wouldn't explain why there are no other mammals, but I'm sure if you put your mind to it you could think of some equally half-baked excuse. As these "dinosaurs" have curly tails like dogs, they were clearly not drawn by anyone who knew what a dinosaur looked like.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well, clearly nature is playing a game of Grandmother's Footsteps with us. As soon as we started to look and find out how fast physical processes occurred, they slowed down to a crawl. And I bet you thought it was just radioactive decay that did that. No, it was all geological processes, which raced away like mad until we turned round and started keeping records.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

And you also believe that: As a matter of fact, both your beliefs are false, but surely even you can see that at least one of them must be.

Or anything else that interferes with your fantasies. Yeah, you think that geologists are wrong about pretty much everything except whether rocks are heavy, while pretending that geology offers support for your position.

Well, that and the unequivocal geological and paleontological evidence that there was no global flood at the PT boundary.

OK, first of all sedimentation doesn't care what it should do. In particular, deltas undergo what is known as "delta switching" ... here, let Wikipedia explain it to you: When a river goes from depositing some sediment in an area to depositing no sediment in that area, that is actually sedimentation changing by a factor of infinity. If it wasn't for the Corps of Engineers, we'd have seen this happen in our lifetimes. Or they could have let the engineers stay home, and got you to go tell the sediment it shouldn't do that.In the second place, as you could see by reading the paper you cited, the sediment moves. It doesn't stay in the delta region. Eventually it goes over the edge of the continental shelf and forms an abyssal cone, in this case the Mississippi Cone, and beyond it the Sigsbee Abyssal Plain. The deeper parts contain a depth of 10 to 15 kilometers of sedimentary rocks --- and remember, that's after compaction of the sediment. Now think about how much greater the combined area of the Mississippi Cone and Sigsbee Abyssal Plain is compared to the Mississippi River delta area, and how very very thin that 15 cm/year in the delta area is going to end up being spread over the abyssal cone and plain. Now contemplate the vast expanse of time it must have taken to deposit that much sediment.Oh, and one more thing to think about. Nothing I've just told you is a secret. You could have found all this out for yourself in minutes if you were remotely interested in the subject you were discussing. Why didn't you? No you don't. But that's another story.

But as you would know if you'd ever taken the slightest interest in radiometric dating, in not one of the parent-daughter pairs used in radiometric dating is the daughter produced from the parent by neutron emission.

Method	Decay mode
K-Ar	Electron capture & beta-plus
Ar-Ar	Electron capture & beta-plus
Rb-Sr	Beta-minus
Sm-Nd	Alpha
Lu-Hf	Beta-minus
Re-Os	Beta-minus
La-Ba	Electron capture
La-Ce	Beta-minus
K-Ca	Beta-minus
238U-206Pb	Decay chain consisting of alpha and beta-minus decay events
235U-207Pb	Decay chain consisting of alpha and beta-minus decay events
Pb-Pb	Decay chain consisting of alpha and beta-minus decay events
Carbon dating	Beta-minus
Cosmogenic surface dating with 10Be	Beta-minus
Cosmogenic surface dating with 26Al	Beta-plus & electron capture

... and a few more too minor to mention. But that's fifteen methods, not one of them involving neutron emission, and so not one of them would be retarded by neutron capture.And there's a reason, mindspawn, why they don't use isotopes where the daughter is produced from the parent by neutron emission. Which is that the halflives of isotopes that decay in that way can be measured in tiny fractions of a second.There are other things wrong with your hand-waving pretense at a hypothesis, but above all it simply doesn't do what you want it to do --- it doesn't explain away one single date produced by any method of radiometric dating.Again I would point out that none of this is a secret. The information is freely available on the internet, for example in chapter 5 of this book.Did it not occur to you that in order to provide even a quarter-baked hypothesis explaining away radiometric dating, you should first find out how radiometric dating works?

Yes, though he hasn't quite scaled the sublime heights attained by the late Buzsaw, who managed to produce a reasoned argument for why the Mississippi River couldn't possibly have eroded the Grand Canyon. That is, a reasoned argument other than the one that would occur to everyone else.

Nor an essential one: it doesn't matter whether your hypothetical effect can be artificially produced in a lab. All that matters is whether it happens on its own. And none of them reverse alpha decay, beta-plus decay, beta-minus decay, or electron capture. Your nonsense has already failed, there's nothing you can do now. Bollocks. Double bollocks.