[split] Radiometric Dating

[pocaracas]

OH, you didn't....

---

Oh awesome irony! A creatard! An actual creatard! One who is actually aware of its creatardness!

1) The start of the process can be analysed by the start of similar processes going on today, namely at active volcanoes.

2) When you measure decay rates of short lived isotopes, you get an exponential, not a constant. It is what the theory predicts, at least in first approximation. There's no actual reason why long lived isotopes would behave differently, seeing as they follow the same law, just with a different time constant.
What does the Earth's magnetic field have to do with nuclear decay rates?
You're wanting to compare the weak nuclear force with a far, far weaker magnetic force... it's effect is, at best, negligible.
3) Some radiometric dating methods actually rely on the presence of secondary and tertiary decay... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating Just look at all the possible methodologies!!
You'd do well to read actual scientific sources, if you're going to argue science. Refrain from using your creatard literature - it's skewed for your presuppositional god.

---

I actually selected that name intentionally to save you guys the time.
1) Again you are making an assumption that the composition of lava flows have always remained the same, and that atmospheric conditions would have the same effect as today.

One thing at a time, please.
"The composition of lava could have been different in the past" seems to be your claim. Now, knowing full well that all material on this planet came by through the process of nuclear fusion in a far gone star, all material in the planet's mantle is sort of stable, ie, no new fusion events, no fission either... So you have a nice soup down there... and the only way out is through volcanoes, or the occasional lava spill from some tectonic rift.
But it seems you're sitting on information about the ever changing composition of this soup.... care to share?

2) Yes, I already knew that is was exponential decay. My basis for this claim is the ratio of Carbon 14 to Carbon 12 in the atmosphere, which would depend on cosmic ray fluctuation, which would in turn be dependent on the earth's magnetic field. I was not trying to say the magnetic field had a direct impact, and I apologize for not making that clear. The strength of the magnetic field would influence how many isotopes would be created by those rays. Take a look at the formation of Carbon 14 to see how influential it is.

wow, wow, wow, big boy... cool it... who said anything about carbon-12 and carbon-14?
Weren't we trying to ascertain the age of the planet? Date the oldest rock possible? Look again in that wiki page... no carbon for stuff that old.

3)You just added more variables that may have not always been constant or you have to assume their initial composition as well.

Just because the problem becomes more complex, doesn't mean it becomes impossible.... remember this... it will most certainly arise again, in some other thread.

Hold on a sec, you just cited wiki but you say my sources aren't valid because they have a bias.

Yes, I quoted wiki... I see you require that level of education.
Your sources start with a book that contains within it a rather extraordinary claim. And then fit the rest of the world to that book. And nothing can convince them that the book is wrong.... "the book is right and everything else must conform or it is wrong."

Not only does every evolutionist article have a bias towards materialism, but in no world is wiki ever a valid source.

In the world of online forums, the wiki is usually good enough. If you want, I can cite $500 text books which repeat the content of the wiki and go into further detail. But... why?

Also, "bias towards materialism"? really? You're one of these?
oh, boy...
If there is a god, and that god made every material we see and that god interacts with that material in order to make your life better, then materialism can and will be used to detect that god's interaction. Thus far, there's zilch of that.
What we have is people who believe. People who, by pattern seeking, attribute to god some event for which they can't find the explanation. People who don't which to die. People who want their loved ones to remain alive. People who convince other people of the afterlife. People who indoctrinate new people. People who write books. People who create rituals and songs to praise the after-life king and, if applicable, all the court. People who register on this site to argue with us. People.

You people have a bias towards your self-delusion. Like all other similar delusions, it's unverifiable, unreproducible, unavailable.
It's the ultimate unobtainium. (oh, by the way, have fun with this link... it's the one true ™ wiki.

The only people I will ever site will have Ph.Ds in their field.

Let me guess... not necessarily the field which is being discussed, huh?

Also, by citing that wiki page you implied that I have not spent the time to study what I'm attacking. I've kind of spent the last 5 years of my life reading about this stuff from peer-reviewed journals on both sides.

On both sides? Which sides?
How many "sides" can get peer-reviewed journals on radiometric dating?