Replies

[[For example
potassium-40 > 100,000 years
rubidium-87 > 10,000,000 years
thorium-232 > 15,000,000 years]]

I know hwat is claimed, however, all those (and every other method used for dating) has problems. What I’m asking is- how can you be certain the dates given are written in stone so to speak? You can’t- there is simply no way to test the accuracy, and infact, they have been shown to be innacurate- giving off many conflicting dates on single items being tested- It’s only when a date randomly appears that matches an a priori assumption that it is accepted.”

The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods
by
John Woodmorappe

An in-depth explanation of isotope dating (otherwise known as radiometric dating) and the reasons why million/billion year old results are not credible.

Discover:

What textbooks and newspapers won’t tell you.
Why discrepancies are common and dating methods are not “self checking.”
That there is no unequivocal support for an Earth age of 4.5 billion years.
How geologists often disagree on which dates are “good.”
Why advancements in isotopic dating have only expanded the list of rationalizations for unwelcome dates.
The steady but obvious retreat of expectations for dating methods.
How chance alone can explain most agreements between methods.
And much more!”

http://www.amazon.com/Mythology-Modern-Dating-Methods-Woodmorappe/dp/0932766579

“National Geographic hardly mentions a word about the many dubious assumptions of isotopic dating (see also Q&A: Radiometric Dating). To rectify this situation, I briefly outline here some of the many fallacies of isotopic dating[3] and discuss some recent developments in the field of age determination....

All isotopic dating methods are based on the radioactive decay of certain nuclides and the associated production of daughter isotopes. How can we be certain that radioactive decay rates have not changed in the past? The NG article assures the reader that they have been constant for all time. Actually, it was once believed that external physical processes could only alter decay rates, at most, by a few percent. Now we realize that there are physical processes capable of hugely changing radioactive decay rates of certain radioactive isotopes. In fact, stripping an atom entirely of electrons has speeded up beta decay by a factor of a billion. If we assume a different history of the early Universe, it is possible that at least the Re-Os and Lu-Hf ‘clocks’ produced billions of years worth of radiogenic isotopes in only one day. Nuclear physicists Drs. Eugene Chaffin and Russell Humphreys suggest that the nuclear decay rate was highly accelerated during Creation Week and possibly during the Flood year. They support this theoretically by applying quantum mechanics and the effect of the Universe’s expansion, and evidentially by the amount of helium still retained in minerals, and radiohalos.[4]”

http://www.trueorigin.org/natgeo_jw01.asp