quote:
1. We must know how much radioactive material we have started with. Any slight amount has an exponential effect on the date. The formula is very basic
(1/2)n x massi = massf, where n= number of half lives. n is what we are trying to find, massf is what we know. We do not know massi, the mass we started with. We have to assume we know how much we start with. Could somebody please explain how we can tell, sitting here today, how much radioactive isotope we started with.
There are a number of techniques of using radioactivity to determine ages. You seem to be assuming a system like carbon dating where only the parent isotope is considered.
In the case of carbon dating specifically we do have good estimates for the initial mass (more accurately estimate of the proportion of radiocarbon to carbon).
Since this question has to be dealt with on the basis of specific methods, which others do you have in mind ?
quote:
2. There is no radioactive material that has moved in or out during or after the formation of the substance. During the formation, whether it is hundreds or millions of years, how in the world can we determine this.
Whether material can move in or out is determined by physics and chemistry. By choosing samples where it would be very difficult or impossible for the relevant material to move in or out this problem can be avoided.
quote:
3. That the rate of decay is constant. Well, if you measure the decay rate for say, 1 year, or even a 100 years, and determine the decay rate to be 4 million years, this is an extreme extrapolation, especially for an exponential equation.
That would make sense if we had no understanding of how radioactive decay worked, so that all we had were measurements. However that is not the case. Changing the decay rate would involve making serious alterations to the way matter works. We have no reason to believe that that is even a remote possibility under the conditions we have to consider and evidence that it has not happened.
quote:
This is absurd, I can’t believe this is even discussed, there are just too many variables. Radiometric dating is an unreliable source for dating inorganic material. And don’t skirt around the issue and say that I got this off some of the many creationist websites out there and therefore it is somehow invalid.
Now hold on a minute. Don't you think that if radiometric dating were really that obviously flawed the experts wouldn't know about it ? And that if it was that flawed they wouldn't use it ? Isn't what you are suggesting absurd ?
™ Version 4.2