Radiometric Dating

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

 

Ok so we are @ an impasse.  It's possible we're just mis-communicating.

 

Just two questions for clarification:

 

1.  Does Radiometric Dating pass the test as "Scientific Evidence"?

 

2.  Radiometric Dating is accurate/true due to similarities in the results comparing different strata in relation to different isotopes?

 

1. yes

2.I don't understand this question.

 

 

1. Yes

 

'Scientific Evidence: consists of observations and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

 

Put it in the Scientific Method from Step 1 to Step 7

 

 

2.  I don't understand this question.

 

"Why is it that if you test two different samples thought to be at the same strata, they give you the same range of date? Why is it that if you are able to test a completely different isotope, you get similar age ranges? Why is this true in all the strata we are able to test?" 

 

"Suppose we do 9 tests, 3 on each strata layer. Suppose further we have two isotopes, X and Y that we can test the ratio of daughter and parent nuclei of, and which we think we know the decay rates of due to careful testing in the lab. The numbers etc are just to illustrate what I have in mind and shouldn't be taken too literally.

 

Strata one we do 3 tests, 2 with X and 1 with Y. We get an age range of 1 million years, +/- 10,000 yrs.

Strata two we do 3 tests, 2 with Y 1 with X, we get an age range of 10 million years, +/- 100,000 yrs (say there is a greater uncertainty because one sample yielded less isotope to measure or some such).

Strata three we do 3 tests, but all isotope Y as X doesn't have a sufficient half life for this one. We get 1 billion years, +/- 1 million yrs."

 

"Now extend this to thousands of tests, a dozen isotopes, and things really get bizarre."

 

Just a sample.  You just spent the better part of 2 posts clamoring about....."similarities in the results comparing different strata in relation to different isotopes".  Well, whats your point?.... Things are Bizarre?  Hence my question for clarification:

 

Is Radiometric Dating accurate/true due to similarities in the results comparing different strata in relation to different isotopes?

 

Oh, "to mask a 10k age from us" and "skewed *just so* that the thing we are testing is only 10k years old total"

 

I never said that or implied it.

 

1. radiometric dating is used by scientists in the pursuit of scientific goals and inferences. This really isn't an interesting debate for me here.

 

2. I'm not really sure what you mean by 'accurate' or 'true' i suppose is my problem. That you have different tests yielding similar answers increases our confidence in a  certain age range.

 

 

"1. radiometric dating is used by scientists in the pursuit of scientific goals and inferences.

 

You can't put it into the "Scientific Method".....hence; it's not "Scientific Evidence".  Also, if you look up synonyms for "inference",  ASSUMPTION is in the first 2 that Pop Up.  So if you put that back into your statement  ".....scientists in pursuit of scientific goals and ASSUMPTIONS.  Not good.

 

"This really isn't an interesting debate for me here."

 

Radiometric Dating is the subject that we are talking about here.  This is the "Grand Daddy" of why we are being told the Earth is 4.5 Billion Years Old.  Well OK,  show me efficacy, veracity, and validity/reliability......PROVE IT

 

2. I'm not really sure what you mean by 'accurate' or 'true' i suppose is my problem. That you have different tests yielding similar answers increases our confidence in a  certain age range."

 

That's why I was asking you what your point was?  "increases confidence", "things are bizarre"  OK.  So??   I'm sure they were pretty confident in the Titanic also.

[alphaparticle]

 

 

 

 

 

Ok so we are @ an impasse.  It's possible we're just mis-communicating.

 

Just two questions for clarification:

 

1.  Does Radiometric Dating pass the test as "Scientific Evidence"?

 

2.  Radiometric Dating is accurate/true due to similarities in the results comparing different strata in relation to different isotopes?

 

1. yes

2.I don't understand this question.

 

 

1. Yes

 

'Scientific Evidence: consists of observations and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

 

Put it in the Scientific Method from Step 1 to Step 7

 

 

2.  I don't understand this question.

 

"Why is it that if you test two different samples thought to be at the same strata, they give you the same range of date? Why is it that if you are able to test a completely different isotope, you get similar age ranges? Why is this true in all the strata we are able to test?" 

 

"Suppose we do 9 tests, 3 on each strata layer. Suppose further we have two isotopes, X and Y that we can test the ratio of daughter and parent nuclei of, and which we think we know the decay rates of due to careful testing in the lab. The numbers etc are just to illustrate what I have in mind and shouldn't be taken too literally.

 

Strata one we do 3 tests, 2 with X and 1 with Y. We get an age range of 1 million years, +/- 10,000 yrs.

Strata two we do 3 tests, 2 with Y 1 with X, we get an age range of 10 million years, +/- 100,000 yrs (say there is a greater uncertainty because one sample yielded less isotope to measure or some such).

Strata three we do 3 tests, but all isotope Y as X doesn't have a sufficient half life for this one. We get 1 billion years, +/- 1 million yrs."

 

"Now extend this to thousands of tests, a dozen isotopes, and things really get bizarre."

 

Just a sample.  You just spent the better part of 2 posts clamoring about....."similarities in the results comparing different strata in relation to different isotopes".  Well, whats your point?.... Things are Bizarre?  Hence my question for clarification:

 

Is Radiometric Dating accurate/true due to similarities in the results comparing different strata in relation to different isotopes?

 

Oh, "to mask a 10k age from us" and "skewed *just so* that the thing we are testing is only 10k years old total"

 

I never said that or implied it.

 

1. radiometric dating is used by scientists in the pursuit of scientific goals and inferences. This really isn't an interesting debate for me here.

 

2. I'm not really sure what you mean by 'accurate' or 'true' i suppose is my problem. That you have different tests yielding similar answers increases our confidence in a  certain age range.

 

 

"1. radiometric dating is used by scientists in the pursuit of scientific goals and inferences.

 

You can't put it into the "Scientific Method".....hence; it's not "Scientific Evidence".  Also, if you look up synonyms for "inference",  ASSUMPTION is in the first 2 that Pop Up.  So if you put that back into your statement  ".....scientists in pursuit of scientific goals and ASSUMPTIONS.  Not good.

 

"This really isn't an interesting debate for me here."

 

Radiometric Dating is the subject that we are talking about here.  This is the "Grand Daddy" of why we are being told the Earth is 4.5 Billion Years Old.  Well OK,  show me efficacy, veracity, and validity/reliability......PROVE IT

 

2. I'm not really sure what you mean by 'accurate' or 'true' i suppose is my problem. That you have different tests yielding similar answers increases our confidence in a  certain age range."

 

That's why I was asking you what your point was?  "increases confidence", "things are bizarre"  OK.  So??   I'm sure they were pretty confident in the Titanic also.

 

1. the entire point of the scenario I lined up was to show you why it's considered a good methodology for dating

 

2. ?? confidence is a statistic, it's not just a feel good sort of thing, it's something we calculate. The worries you had for instance are included into our error bars, and then integrated into our confidence about some conclusion

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ok so we are @ an impasse.  It's possible we're just mis-communicating.

 

Just two questions for clarification:

 

1.  Does Radiometric Dating pass the test as "Scientific Evidence"?

 

2.  Radiometric Dating is accurate/true due to similarities in the results comparing different strata in relation to different isotopes?

 

1. yes

2.I don't understand this question.

 

 

1. Yes

 

'Scientific Evidence: consists of observations and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

 

Put it in the Scientific Method from Step 1 to Step 7

 

 

2.  I don't understand this question.

 

"Why is it that if you test two different samples thought to be at the same strata, they give you the same range of date? Why is it that if you are able to test a completely different isotope, you get similar age ranges? Why is this true in all the strata we are able to test?" 

 

"Suppose we do 9 tests, 3 on each strata layer. Suppose further we have two isotopes, X and Y that we can test the ratio of daughter and parent nuclei of, and which we think we know the decay rates of due to careful testing in the lab. The numbers etc are just to illustrate what I have in mind and shouldn't be taken too literally.

 

Strata one we do 3 tests, 2 with X and 1 with Y. We get an age range of 1 million years, +/- 10,000 yrs.

Strata two we do 3 tests, 2 with Y 1 with X, we get an age range of 10 million years, +/- 100,000 yrs (say there is a greater uncertainty because one sample yielded less isotope to measure or some such).

Strata three we do 3 tests, but all isotope Y as X doesn't have a sufficient half life for this one. We get 1 billion years, +/- 1 million yrs."

 

"Now extend this to thousands of tests, a dozen isotopes, and things really get bizarre."

 

Just a sample.  You just spent the better part of 2 posts clamoring about....."similarities in the results comparing different strata in relation to different isotopes".  Well, whats your point?.... Things are Bizarre?  Hence my question for clarification:

 

Is Radiometric Dating accurate/true due to similarities in the results comparing different strata in relation to different isotopes?

 

Oh, "to mask a 10k age from us" and "skewed *just so* that the thing we are testing is only 10k years old total"

 

I never said that or implied it.

 

1. radiometric dating is used by scientists in the pursuit of scientific goals and inferences. This really isn't an interesting debate for me here.

 

2. I'm not really sure what you mean by 'accurate' or 'true' i suppose is my problem. That you have different tests yielding similar answers increases our confidence in a  certain age range.

 

 

"1. radiometric dating is used by scientists in the pursuit of scientific goals and inferences.

 

You can't put it into the "Scientific Method".....hence; it's not "Scientific Evidence".  Also, if you look up synonyms for "inference",  ASSUMPTION is in the first 2 that Pop Up.  So if you put that back into your statement  ".....scientists in pursuit of scientific goals and ASSUMPTIONS.  Not good.

 

"This really isn't an interesting debate for me here."

 

Radiometric Dating is the subject that we are talking about here.  This is the "Grand Daddy" of why we are being told the Earth is 4.5 Billion Years Old.  Well OK,  show me efficacy, veracity, and validity/reliability......PROVE IT

 

2. I'm not really sure what you mean by 'accurate' or 'true' i suppose is my problem. That you have different tests yielding similar answers increases our confidence in a  certain age range."

 

That's why I was asking you what your point was?  "increases confidence", "things are bizarre"  OK.  So??   I'm sure they were pretty confident in the Titanic also.

 

1. the entire point of the scenario I lined up was to show you why it's considered a good methodology for dating

 

2. ?? confidence is a statistic, it's not just a feel good sort of thing, it's something we calculate. The worries you had for instance are included into our error bars, and then integrated into our confidence about some conclusion

 

 

Well fair enough.  Forgive me, I was looking for Proof. 

 

"?? confidence is a statistic, it's not just a feel good sort of thing"

 

I never said it was "a feel good sort of thing".  Also, I'm pretty sure they had some good Statistical Models for the Titanic.

[alphaparticle]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ok so we are @ an impasse.  It's possible we're just mis-communicating.

 

Just two questions for clarification:

 

1.  Does Radiometric Dating pass the test as "Scientific Evidence"?

 

2.  Radiometric Dating is accurate/true due to similarities in the results comparing different strata in relation to different isotopes?

 

1. yes

2.I don't understand this question.

 

 

1. Yes

 

'Scientific Evidence: consists of observations and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

 

Put it in the Scientific Method from Step 1 to Step 7

 

 

2.  I don't understand this question.

 

"Why is it that if you test two different samples thought to be at the same strata, they give you the same range of date? Why is it that if you are able to test a completely different isotope, you get similar age ranges? Why is this true in all the strata we are able to test?" 

 

"Suppose we do 9 tests, 3 on each strata layer. Suppose further we have two isotopes, X and Y that we can test the ratio of daughter and parent nuclei of, and which we think we know the decay rates of due to careful testing in the lab. The numbers etc are just to illustrate what I have in mind and shouldn't be taken too literally.

 

Strata one we do 3 tests, 2 with X and 1 with Y. We get an age range of 1 million years, +/- 10,000 yrs.

Strata two we do 3 tests, 2 with Y 1 with X, we get an age range of 10 million years, +/- 100,000 yrs (say there is a greater uncertainty because one sample yielded less isotope to measure or some such).

Strata three we do 3 tests, but all isotope Y as X doesn't have a sufficient half life for this one. We get 1 billion years, +/- 1 million yrs."

 

"Now extend this to thousands of tests, a dozen isotopes, and things really get bizarre."

 

Just a sample.  You just spent the better part of 2 posts clamoring about....."similarities in the results comparing different strata in relation to different isotopes".  Well, whats your point?.... Things are Bizarre?  Hence my question for clarification:

 

Is Radiometric Dating accurate/true due to similarities in the results comparing different strata in relation to different isotopes?

 

Oh, "to mask a 10k age from us" and "skewed *just so* that the thing we are testing is only 10k years old total"

 

I never said that or implied it.

 

1. radiometric dating is used by scientists in the pursuit of scientific goals and inferences. This really isn't an interesting debate for me here.

 

2. I'm not really sure what you mean by 'accurate' or 'true' i suppose is my problem. That you have different tests yielding similar answers increases our confidence in a  certain age range.

 

 

"1. radiometric dating is used by scientists in the pursuit of scientific goals and inferences.

 

You can't put it into the "Scientific Method".....hence; it's not "Scientific Evidence".  Also, if you look up synonyms for "inference",  ASSUMPTION is in the first 2 that Pop Up.  So if you put that back into your statement  ".....scientists in pursuit of scientific goals and ASSUMPTIONS.  Not good.

 

"This really isn't an interesting debate for me here."

 

Radiometric Dating is the subject that we are talking about here.  This is the "Grand Daddy" of why we are being told the Earth is 4.5 Billion Years Old.  Well OK,  show me efficacy, veracity, and validity/reliability......PROVE IT

 

2. I'm not really sure what you mean by 'accurate' or 'true' i suppose is my problem. That you have different tests yielding similar answers increases our confidence in a  certain age range."

 

That's why I was asking you what your point was?  "increases confidence", "things are bizarre"  OK.  So??   I'm sure they were pretty confident in the Titanic also.

 

1. the entire point of the scenario I lined up was to show you why it's considered a good methodology for dating

 

2. ?? confidence is a statistic, it's not just a feel good sort of thing, it's something we calculate. The worries you had for instance are included into our error bars, and then integrated into our confidence about some conclusion

 

 

Well fair enough.  Forgive me, I was looking for Proof. 

 

"?? confidence is a statistic, it's not just a feel good sort of thing"

 

I never said it was "a feel good sort of thing".  Also, I'm pretty sure they had some good Statistical Models for the Titanic.

 

I don't know that they calculated chi squared for the titanic lol...

 

I don't work in proof. I have evidence that I present with relevant statistics.

[LookingForAnswers]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ok so we are @ an impasse.  It's possible we're just mis-communicating.

 

Just two questions for clarification:

 

1.  Does Radiometric Dating pass the test as "Scientific Evidence"?

 

2.  Radiometric Dating is accurate/true due to similarities in the results comparing different strata in relation to different isotopes?

 

1. yes

2.I don't understand this question.

 

 

1. Yes

 

'Scientific Evidence: consists of observations and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

 

Put it in the Scientific Method from Step 1 to Step 7

 

 

2.  I don't understand this question.

 

"Why is it that if you test two different samples thought to be at the same strata, they give you the same range of date? Why is it that if you are able to test a completely different isotope, you get similar age ranges? Why is this true in all the strata we are able to test?" 

 

"Suppose we do 9 tests, 3 on each strata layer. Suppose further we have two isotopes, X and Y that we can test the ratio of daughter and parent nuclei of, and which we think we know the decay rates of due to careful testing in the lab. The numbers etc are just to illustrate what I have in mind and shouldn't be taken too literally.

 

Strata one we do 3 tests, 2 with X and 1 with Y. We get an age range of 1 million years, +/- 10,000 yrs.

Strata two we do 3 tests, 2 with Y 1 with X, we get an age range of 10 million years, +/- 100,000 yrs (say there is a greater uncertainty because one sample yielded less isotope to measure or some such).

Strata three we do 3 tests, but all isotope Y as X doesn't have a sufficient half life for this one. We get 1 billion years, +/- 1 million yrs."

 

"Now extend this to thousands of tests, a dozen isotopes, and things really get bizarre."

 

Just a sample.  You just spent the better part of 2 posts clamoring about....."similarities in the results comparing different strata in relation to different isotopes".  Well, whats your point?.... Things are Bizarre?  Hence my question for clarification:

 

Is Radiometric Dating accurate/true due to similarities in the results comparing different strata in relation to different isotopes?

 

Oh, "to mask a 10k age from us" and "skewed *just so* that the thing we are testing is only 10k years old total"

 

I never said that or implied it.

 

1. radiometric dating is used by scientists in the pursuit of scientific goals and inferences. This really isn't an interesting debate for me here.

 

2. I'm not really sure what you mean by 'accurate' or 'true' i suppose is my problem. That you have different tests yielding similar answers increases our confidence in a  certain age range.

 

 

"1. radiometric dating is used by scientists in the pursuit of scientific goals and inferences.

 

You can't put it into the "Scientific Method".....hence; it's not "Scientific Evidence".  Also, if you look up synonyms for "inference",  ASSUMPTION is in the first 2 that Pop Up.  So if you put that back into your statement  ".....scientists in pursuit of scientific goals and ASSUMPTIONS.  Not good.

 

"This really isn't an interesting debate for me here."

 

Radiometric Dating is the subject that we are talking about here.  This is the "Grand Daddy" of why we are being told the Earth is 4.5 Billion Years Old.  Well OK,  show me efficacy, veracity, and validity/reliability......PROVE IT

 

2. I'm not really sure what you mean by 'accurate' or 'true' i suppose is my problem. That you have different tests yielding similar answers increases our confidence in a  certain age range."

 

That's why I was asking you what your point was?  "increases confidence", "things are bizarre"  OK.  So??   I'm sure they were pretty confident in the Titanic also.

 

1. the entire point of the scenario I lined up was to show you why it's considered a good methodology for dating

 

2. ?? confidence is a statistic, it's not just a feel good sort of thing, it's something we calculate. The worries you had for instance are included into our error bars, and then integrated into our confidence about some conclusion

 

 

Well fair enough.  Forgive me, I was looking for Proof. 

 

"?? confidence is a statistic, it's not just a feel good sort of thing"

 

I never said it was "a feel good sort of thing".  Also, I'm pretty sure they had some good Statistical Models for the Titanic.

 

I don't know that they calculated chi squared for the titanic lol...

 

I don't work in proof. I have evidence that I present with relevant statistics.

 

 

 

No science works in proof, and he knows this which is why he plays these silly reindeer games. 

[ARGOSY]

So, we are mistaken about the number of daughter particles, in each sample for each isotope, in the *exact amount* to cause us to converge on a coherent picture that just happens to date the earth to billions of years old? That doesn't really answer my challenge. There are thousands of these tests done now, using multiple different radioactive isotopes. What you suggest is that there is a massive coincidence. Maybe God put just the right amount of daughter nuclei in with every parent so that it would look like some strata is 60 million years old, and that it will look like that for every test you do on a sample in that strata, but really it's only 10k after all? And then that is true for all the various strata that are tested. Hopefully you'll see why I don't take such a suggestion as feasible.

 

When you wrote this, I assumed you were responding to Enoch and so I didn't reply.

 

There's no co-incidence, I believe radiometric dating is an accurate reflection of relative dates. When there is a variance in radiation (eg solar flares/July/midnight, 33 day cycle) there is an observed and scientifically tested decay variance across all unstable isotopes, both alpha and beta decay. That is what the studies indicate. So of course there is consilience because decay rates vary in sync with eachother due to  the radiation effect having a universal effect among all unstable isotopes.

[wincam]

It is certainly not creationists that control the media or textbooks etc and see for yourself what non science and nonsense has been and is been taught and accepted - see www.EvolutionvsGod.com  and via google see [Fact vs Faith]textbooks - wincam

Edited February 1, 2014 by wincam

[alphaparticle]

 

So, we are mistaken about the number of daughter particles, in each sample for each isotope, in the *exact amount* to cause us to converge on a coherent picture that just happens to date the earth to billions of years old? That doesn't really answer my challenge. There are thousands of these tests done now, using multiple different radioactive isotopes. What you suggest is that there is a massive coincidence. Maybe God put just the right amount of daughter nuclei in with every parent so that it would look like some strata is 60 million years old, and that it will look like that for every test you do on a sample in that strata, but really it's only 10k after all? And then that is true for all the various strata that are tested. Hopefully you'll see why I don't take such a suggestion as feasible.

 

When you wrote this, I assumed you were responding to Enoch and so I didn't reply.

 

There's no co-incidence, I believe radiometric dating is an accurate reflection of relative dates. When there is a variance in radiation (eg solar flares/July/midnight, 33 day cycle) there is an observed and scientifically tested decay variance across all unstable isotopes, both alpha and beta decay. That is what the studies indicate. So of course there is consilience because decay rates vary in sync with eachother due to  the radiation effect having a universal effect among all unstable isotopes.

 

Okay, and you think that will make up for the 4 billion year shortfall just exactly so? Have you tried looking at the number of events, the intensity of events, you need in 6000 yrs to make it seem that way given the rather small variance?

[ARGOSY]

 

 

So, we are mistaken about the number of daughter particles, in each sample for each isotope, in the *exact amount* to cause us to converge on a coherent picture that just happens to date the earth to billions of years old? That doesn't really answer my challenge. There are thousands of these tests done now, using multiple different radioactive isotopes. What you suggest is that there is a massive coincidence. Maybe God put just the right amount of daughter nuclei in with every parent so that it would look like some strata is 60 million years old, and that it will look like that for every test you do on a sample in that strata, but really it's only 10k after all? And then that is true for all the various strata that are tested. Hopefully you'll see why I don't take such a suggestion as feasible.

 

When you wrote this, I assumed you were responding to Enoch and so I didn't reply.

 

There's no co-incidence, I believe radiometric dating is an accurate reflection of relative dates. When there is a variance in radiation (eg solar flares/July/midnight, 33 day cycle) there is an observed and scientifically tested decay variance across all unstable isotopes, both alpha and beta decay. That is what the studies indicate. So of course there is consilience because decay rates vary in sync with eachother due to  the radiation effect having a universal effect among all unstable isotopes.

 

Okay, and you think that will make up for the 4 billion year shortfall just exactly so? Have you tried looking at the number of events, the intensity of events, you need in 6000 yrs to make it seem that way given the rather small variance?

 

 

I'm not a YEC, I think that this effect could very well make up for the 600 million year shortfall since life was detected.  The focus of studies has been short-life isotopes, the detected effect would be logically higher for long-life isotopes. 

 

The idea is that for slow decaying isotopes, the slight energising effect of background radiation could maintain nearly every atom of the parent isotope in an energised/unstable state. The loss of energy nearly equals the gain of energy and this equilibrium makes decay very slow.  Remove the energising effect of background radiation, and the parent isotope will suddenly decay at much higher rates. A factor of 100 000 is not impossible, we will have to start counting atoms in a sample to get to the bottom of the possibilities.  

[Enoch2021]

 

Okay, and you think that will make up for the 4 billion year shortfall just exactly so? Have you tried looking at the number of events, the intensity of events, you need in 6000 yrs to make it seem that way given the rather small variance?

 

 

What "4 Billion Year" Shortfall?  You're chasing Ghosts.....

 

 

The 4.5 b.y. era started about 1955 with the publication of a classic paper by Patterson et al.

Patterson, C., Tilton, G. and Inghram, M., Science 121:69, 1955.

The 4.5 Billion Year Estimate relies heavily on the uranium/thorium/lead radiometric dating methods.  They estimated the age of the Earth by substituting the lead isotope ratios of certain meteorites in the Holmes-Houtermans equation.  These values they assumed were based on the lead isotope ratios observed for three meteorites.  Big sample size, eh? Moreover, later... it is even more surprising to learn that the lead isotope ratios chosen by Patterson et al were found not to be representative of the majority of meteorites.-----Faul, H., Ages of Rocks, Planets and Stars, McGraw-Hill Book Co., p. 75, 1966

 

THEN, in 1972, Gale et al dropped a LEAD "Isotope" ANVIL on all of the 13th Century Alchemy......

“ … it is not widely appreciated, outside the ranks of those who work directly in geochronology or meteoritics that, judged by modern standards, the meteoritic lead-lead isochron is very poorly established.

“This (work) shows unequivocally for the first time that there is indeed a real problem in the uranium/lead evolution in meteorites, in that in each of these meteorites there is now insufficient uranium to support the lead isotope composition.

“It therefore follows that the whole of the classical interpretation of the meteorite lead isotope data is in doubt, and that the radiometric estimates of the age of the Earth are placed in jeopardy.”

Gale. N.H., Arden, J. and Hutchison, R., Nature Phys. Science 240:57, 1972

 

 

Appears nobody got this memo. 

 

 

The 4.5 Billion Year Old Earth "Extrapolation from an Assumption" is merely a Ghost..... it was conjured from "Meteorites" Erroneously.