When are you going to discuss or apologize for your insulting claim that K-Ar dating is "rigged"?
Nobody ever claimed that all argon is tied up within rocks. Call back when you have some proof that argon actually does diffuse into rocks in significant amounts. And address the consistency of various radiometric dates; the ones listed at Consistent Radiometric dates will do for a start.
JonF, So you agree that argon is not all tied up in the inner earth, and that argon can diffuse into the sediments
Yes, I agree that argon is not all tied up in the inner Earth. However, the diffusion rate of argon into the igneous rocks (not sediments) that we date with K-Ar and Ar-Ar is too low to significantly affect the results. Call back when you have some evidence that it actually happens.
The link I gave explains that there can be a problem with samples in which argon has diffused out, explains how to avoid the problem, and points out that the problem is rare.
how do they know its a fact, that the isotopes are decaying at the rates they say, if they were off a bit, this too would affect the dating accuracy
How many times must I point out that you have no idea what you are talking about and that you are terrible at making stuff up?
The decay rates have been measured, pretty accurately, and they are measured over and over and over again at different times by different labs using different methods under different conditions. The decay rates don't change noticeably1. They are known precisely enough to induce at most a percent or two error into the dates. One of the reasons for the popularity of concordia-discordia dating is that the decay rate of uranium is known significantly more accurately than any other. I bet you're not smart enlugh to figure out why, although it should be obvious.
seems they are making an assumption about these changing decay rate
Yuo are making up fantasy. No assumptions. Measurements.
1Many creationists got all excited recently at the news that someone had ademonstrated an effect that was predicted in the 1940's, in which a particular type of decay (that is not present in almost all types of dating) was sped up several percent under conditions that would destroy the entire Earth instantaneously.
Thought they try to date basalt that has no impurities, like minerals like granite, or other sedimentary rock melding with the basalt, that would cause age abnormalities
That has no relationship to his question. He's pointing out that your "model", such as it is, predicts that different minerals (in which argon diffuses differently) from one level should yield different dates, and this is the oposite of what we observe. Your "model" does not correspond to what we see in the real world. Try answering the question that he asked.
JonF, How do we know if solar energy of the sun isn't affecting the rate of the decay of the isotopes
Because we understand the process very well, both theoretically and practically, and nothing affects radioactive decay rates noticeably wihtout destroying the Earth or leaving other such subtle traces.
would question that how do you know the rates of decay have remained constant over 100's of millions of years
If the radioactive decay rates had changed enough to make a 6000-year-old Earth look 4.5 billion years old, it would have released enought energy to melt the Earth several times over.
it was the scientists that made the assumption that the sun was a star for more than 12,000 years,
Not an assumption. A solidly founded conclusion based on measurements and evidence.
and created a forumla that the decay ratio has not changed, off this premise
The fact that decay rates do not change is supported by experimental and theoretical evidence from many fields. If they had changed, it would have left traces. We don't see those traces.
however, the creationists belief that the sun has only been shining 6,000 years
Yes, we know that. The creationists are wrong, and have no evidence for their fantasy.
I was kind of winging it
We know. It's obvious.
it will all come down to the sun, was it or wasn't it
Ws it or wasn't it what? The Sun has been shining for circa 4.5 billion years. That we know. Call back when you have some evidence instead of just unfounded fantasy.
is argon rising up from the inner earth
No. Call back when you have some evidence instead of just unfounded fantasy.
so the creationists will never agree that the isotope dating method has merit
We know. Denying reality and ignoring the evidence are creationist specialties, and you have demonstrated both abundantly.
Thought the only evidence you had that the sun was old, was a moon rock
No, there's lots more evidence than that. We understand how the Sun works very well, and hav measured many of its characterisitcs. If you had read the thread to which I pointed you about the age of the Sun you would understand a very little bit of the vast amount of evidence we have about the age of the Sun.
I guess I'm just going to agree to disagree, you have your fantasy, and I have mine, etc
The appropriate defintion of "fantasy" is defined as "fiction characterized by highly fanciful or supernatural elements." The mainstream scientific explanation of the age of the Earth and Sun and life does not meet any of the definitions of fantasy.
So what? Call back when you have some EVIDENCE THAT IT ACTUALLY HAPPENS. That's going to be very difficult, because THE OBSERVED EVIDENCE CONTRADICTS YOUR CLAIM.
its not a soluable gas
It is soluble. Noble gases dissolve just like other gases.
if the sun wasn't a star, like would the iron in the earth create super magnetic fields
I was just questioning something thats apparently been etched in stone
It's not etched in stone. It's supported by a vast amount of interconnected evidence that you don't understand. You are not even aware that the evidence exists. The only "evidence" that you know is that you don't like the conclusion.
don't put as much faith as you that the istope decay has been constant for all them millions of years
We know you don't like it. The constancy of radioactive decay is supported by a vast amount of interconnected evidence that you don't understand. You are not even aware that the evidence exists. The only "evidence" that you know is that you don't like the conclusion.
I just thought it interesting that the evolutionists didn't date Austins rock with the other dating methods, suspecting had the wrong parent materials for the other dating methods
The "evolutionists" did date the formations from which Austin's rocks came, with various dating methods. They did this before Austin showed up, and maybe after (I don't know). In fact, Austin initialy started his project by mis-using data pblished in an "evolutionist" study.
Austin carefully selected samples, probably using the "evolutionist" study as a guide, to appear to give an erroneous isochron. He ignored the procedures by which real geologists detect erroneous isochrons.
quote:Before the Grand Canyon Dating Project began, in his 1988 Impact article, Austin admitted in print that the selected lava flows fell into two different stratigraphic stages. That is, the very information which he used to select the flows, also clearly indicates that they did not all occur at the same time. In his subsequent book (1994, p. 125), Austin indicated that his five data points came from four different lava flows plus an extracted "phenocryst" (large mineral which likely formed in the magma chamber and was not molten in the lava flow). We had known from the Impact articles that Austin's samples were not all cogenetic; years later we found out by his own admission that no two of them are so.
but whatever, they said it didn't work in the Grand Canyon
Dating works just fine in the Grand Canton, except when a charlatan deliberately creates a fraud.
its enough for me to believe it is penetrating (diffusing) into the pores of the very basalts your dating
You can believe anyting you want for any reasons that make sense to you. If you wish to claim that your beliefs have some relationship to reality, or that scientists should consider your beliefs, you need evidence.
because it insoluable
the diamond is proof it can even age things excessively
There may be, and probably are, a few erroneous dates. It is not possible that all the dates are erroneous. There's just too much agreement between various radimetric methods, non-radiometric mehtods, and historical knowledge.
or whatever its worth, here's Snelling's impact article's,
You've posted those before, and we have pointed out some of the many errors in them and posted links to the more detailed refutations. I've read those propaganda tracts several times, and I bet Joe and others have too. Until you want to discuss the refutations, give up posting those links.
there are scientists that have Phd's in this field that are honestly questioning the very basis of the argon dating methods
Joe has already pointed out that their formal qualifications are not as you claim. There is good reason to believe that they are not honestly questioning; they appear to me to be "liars for Jesus" who promulgate things they know are false because they think it serves a higher purpose ... which makes them very dangerous people if I'm right.
And, of course, they are not scientists, because they have pledged to ignore evidence that contradicts their preconceptions.
perhaps in time scientists will work it all out
A lot of it has been worked out, such as the age of the Earth and Sun and life on Earth. Refinements and corrections will come, but major changes will not happen.