Dating Methodology and its Associated Assumptions

For further details you might be interested in this article and this article .I didn't think Milton was that gullible or dishonest but it appears that I am mistaken.

Percy, Charles Knight, RAZD, Mark24, Roxrkool, jar and others, I compliment you on your informative, logical, readable contributions to this discussion. But what more can you now expect by continuing this discussion?Any interested or curious reader has been exposed to the lines of argument and evidentiary bases on which geological chronology is based. The spurious arguments provided by creationists and such cranks as Milton have been exposed and refuted. However there is no hope of this seeping through Willowtree's personal firewall of fantasy, ignorance and doublethink.It is obvious that wt is incapable of answering the many questions which have been asked of him. jar's halflife question will never be answered. No suporting evidence beyond "my hero Milton or Dr Scott says..." will be provided. Even the simplest, obviously correct explanation which conflicts with wt's worldview can be denied because you are a godless atheist whose godsense has been removed. What, you say you are a christian? Then you are even worse bacause you have been deceived by the antichrist (being any theologist other than Dr Scott).Why don't you lying, gullible geological professionals and scientific literates just admit that the worldwide conspiracy of evos has been exposed by willow?

Unfortunately for you willow your heroes are misleading you.I have no doubt that Milton is consciously lying to you. His misrepresentation of the Funkhauser and Naughton paper is so obvious that he could not innocently misrepresented it. And I note that you fail to read or comprehend the material which explains the correct position.BTW, I note that kangaroos are not covered by any of the criteria mention in your biblical reference. Does that mean they are ok?

willow equivocates: Which datings are incorrect and what are the conditions which result in inaccurate ratiometric datings? Surely you can provide something specific.

Willow is sucked in by his unreliable and dishonest hero Milton: The gist of this fallacy was debunked by Mark Austin in message #158. You failed to respond to that message.Let me reiterate the point in simple terms for you. I will type slowly to make it easier for you.When lava is expelled from a volcano, any chemically inert Argon gas atoms already in the lava are boiled off from the lava. Therefore, when the lava cools and forms crystal minerals, there are no Argon atoms in the crystals. This postulated process has been tested many times and found to be generally accurate. Thus the only Ar which can be detected in such igneous rocks is the result of the radioactive decay of Potassium in the lava's crystaline material into Argon. If you can answer jar's repeated question then you are some way towards understanding how the measured ratios of potassium and argon in a lava sample and the known halflife can allow you to calculate the age of the lava sample.So, Milton's birdcage is empty.Funkhouser and Naughton's studies showed that other older material which may become trapped in the lava flow (inclusions or xenoliths) may undergo partial release of any radiogenic argon in the inclusions but not complete degassing. Therefore the radiometic clock of those inclusions will not be reset to zero years at the time of the lava flow. However, this is the part which Milton dishonestly neglects to mention, Funkhouser and Naughton's radiometric dating of the lava material surrounding the inclusions gave the correct date (compared with the independent historical records). Dalrymple cited 25 other radiometric datings of historical lava flows which gave the correct or near correct datings. Does Milton offer anything besides the misrepresentation of Funkhouser and Naughton's paper?