Creation Science ...

[Josh Passini]

The way I look at is that 1000 years ago people believed there was nothing outside their own continent and we know that was wrong so why fight about now because time will prove what we believe to be true maybe is not. So fuck it. As long as we get through the next 100 years without destroying eveything we will be good.

[Tim Elliott]

You know what I like about the polonium halo thing? Ignoring all else, the theory relies on known half lives. Which apparently, we dont know.

Which is it Jason?

Iv never really discussed this stuff with anyone who actually believed it before.

All of the things you said were problems with the technique are not problems. They can be corrected for. Zircon closes at 900 degrees Celsius. After that its a closed system and Zircon is a virtually indestructible time capsule. Native lead can be measured and corrected for. The decay rates are reliable, the only change in them Iv ever heard described (as a result of sun spots) would make the earth OLDER than we think it is.

Explain to me how someone can tell the difference between native Polonium and Polonium from as a decay product, but you cant do the same for lead? The counter for the theory also proves it!

Jason, how do creation scientists who discredit radiometric dating explain how well it works?

I mean, if a its a flawed technique, why does it work? And it works all the time. As I said, it correlates perfectly with other forms of dating. Ages are consistent. Why does it work so well?

[Jason Mallory]

You haven't shown that it works Tim, you just say that it works. The problems with radiometric dating are real and make it unreliable.

While the radioisotopes in granite go through the decay process they are open systems. This is when contamination makes radiometric dating unreliable. You still don't know what elements and at what quantities were in the granite when it formed and we believe the decay rates are constant today but we don't know that they have always been constant. Sunspots, the Van Allen radiation belts or some radioactive meteor that hit Earth could have altered the decay rates in the past making the calculations unreliable.

Leeching is also a problem. We do not know if any of the elements leeched out of a sample which would greatly affect the calculations. A weak acid solution could leech out lead for example.

Evolution theorists say that at the beginning there was only Uranium and all its daughter elements developed later through the decay process ( this sounds like chemical de-evolution, not evolution to me ). Polomium is a daughter product of Uranium.

Polonium forms the outer three rings of Uranium decay halos but Polomium halos apart from Uranium halos are in granite as well which means the daughter element was present apart from the parent. If at the beginning only the parent element existed and produced all the daughter elements then independent Polomium halos would not exist, but since they do, Uranium-Lead dating is unreliable.

Lead neutron capture is another problem for Uranium or Thorium dating.

Again you say that it correlates perfectly with other forms of dating but have failed to give any examples that we can talk about.

[Tim Elliott]

You haven't shown that it works Tim, you just say that it works. The problems with radiometric dating are real and make it unreliable.

While the radioisotopes in granite go through the decay process they are open systems. This is when contamination makes radiometric dating unreliable. You still don't know what elements and at what quantities were in the granite when it formed and we believe the decay rates are constant today but we don't know that they have always been constant. Sunspots, the Van Allen radiation belts or some radioactive meteor that hit Earth could have altered the decay rates in the past making the calculations unreliable.

Leeching is also a problem. We do not know if any of the elements leeched out of a sample which would greatly affect the calculations. A weak acid solution could leech out lead for example.

Evolution theorists say that at the beginning there was only Uranium and all its daughter elements developed later through the decay process ( this sounds like chemical de-evolution, not evolution to me ). Polomium is a daughter product of Uranium.

Polonium forms the outer three rings of Uranium decay halos but Polomium halos apart from Uranium halos are in granite as well which means the daughter element was present apart from the parent. If at the beginning only the parent element existed and produced all the daughter elements then independent Polomium halos would not exist, but since they do, Uranium-Lead dating is unreliable.

Lead neutron capture is another problem for Uranium or Thorium dating.

Again you say that it correlates perfectly with other forms of dating but have failed to give any examples that we can talk about.

I am just telling you Jason. Iv been studying this stuff for a long time. At the moment, what your talking about is not U/Pb dating. It appears that whoever told you about it had never done it and had never actually tried to understand it. Im really not going to teach you basic geology, mineralogy and geochronology. The information is readily available if your willing to put the time in.

[Jason Mallory]

I am just telling you Jason. Iv been studying this stuff for a long time. At the moment, what your talking about is not U/Pb dating. It appears that whoever told you about it had never done it and had never actually tried to understand it. Im really not going to teach you basic geology, mineralogy and geochronology. The information is readily available if your willing to put the time in.

I am confident in the information I have about U/Pb dating and it's consistent with what I have read on the net about it.

[Corky]

everybody look up the 11th dimension
you dont have to understand string theory to get it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xE7xRgfPjAI