Replies

That will date the sample in question. To use that as evidence of a young earth, you have to assume that nothing else can be any older than that sample.

Well, we could say that of any method/sample. The salient point here is that coal and other C-14 dated samples (dinosaur tissue has also been C-14 'dated') are conventionally said to be hundreds of millions of years old using the same dating techniques that are used to justify the 4.56 BYA age for the earth. If those techniques are wrong in the case of coal, diamonds, dinosaurs, etc., then we have no justification for believing it accurate for the age of the earth.

We've already known for some time that (1) when rocks of known age are dated with methods like Ar/Ar and U/Pb they incorrectly give very large ages, (2) radioisotope decay can be accelerated a billion-fold or more in the lab under appropriate conditions, and (3) different methods typically do not agree with one another on the same sample (despite the occasional concordance that is emphasized in pro-evolutionary literature, it has been clear for some time that this is not generally the case.)

There is good evidence from helium retention in zircons and other phenomena that there has been a recent burst of inorganic radioisotope decay within the past few thousand years that would largely explain the old 'dates' found using these techniques. (Cf. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove) This would also explain the absence of most short-life isotopes, which has been used as an argument against a young earth.

Thus, on the whole I came to regard inorganic radiometric dating as a very weak argument a long time ago, much less robust than generally regarded and less so than many other chronometers such as the C-14 evidence, magnetic field decay, and salt and other mineral influx into oceans.

Well, we could say that of any method/sample. The salient point here is that coal and other C-14 dated samples (dinosaur tissue has also been C-14 'dated') are conventionally said to be hundreds of millions of years old using the same dating techniques that are used to justify the 4.56 BYA age for the earth. If those techniques are wrong in the case of coal, diamonds, dinosaurs, etc., then we have no justification for believing it accurate for the age of the earth.

Esitmates of the age of the Earth aren't based on C-14 dating. We're back where we started.

There is good evidence from helium retention in zircons and other phenomena that there has been a recent burst of inorganic radioisotope decay within the past few thousand years that would largely explain the old 'dates' found using these techniques. (Cf. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove) This would also explain the absence of most short-life isotopes, which has been used as an argument against a young earth.

I've read that analysis. It was a limited sample, and the analysis failed to take a number of variables into account. Your criteria for what constitutes "good" evidence seem highly questionable.

(2) radioisotope decay can be accelerated a billion-fold or more in the lab under appropriate conditions,

Indeed. When you do that with Uranium, we call it a "bomb". If that's what happened to all the uranium, the planet would have been vaporized.