[split] Radiometric Dating

[Jackalope]

Holy necropost.

These "problems" are very overblown and inaccurately characterized by creationists.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-...l#creadate

Can't say I'm surprised you used that site. It deals with problems 2 and 3, but you still need to answer for one.
It does not address the effects of earth's magnetic field

What effects of the earth's magnetic field?

Its contention with constant decay rates was met with isochrones, which assumes a known amount of sister isotopes. Isochrones were applied to the K-Ar dating during the tests for lava flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, an initial failure because flows known to be 50 years old were given ages over 270,000 years old. When isochrones were applied, the difference was made even worse(Pb-Pb, also tested on site with isochrones, gave an estimate that multiplied the real age by a factor of 70,000,000.) From observable instances, not the computer generated ones, isochrones have not shown to increase reliability.

Did the sample in question contain xenoliths or xenocrysts? You are aware that rocks containing xenoliths cannot be accurately dated using this method - and that geologists are quite aware of this fact? Did Snelling (the creationist who made these measurements) disclose this, or his methodology?

Does Snelling know that K-Ar testing is inappropriate for use on young rocks, and that geologists are well aware of this limitation? (The same likely applies to Pb-Pb, depending on the half-lives of the isotopes in question.) In short, Snelling is (possibly intentionally) using a hammer to drive in a screw. That he obtained inconsistent readings should indicate to him (as it would to any geologist without an agenda) that the sample in question was either contaminated, or that his methodology was flawed.

Recall that I earlier said "inaccurately characterized by creationists". This is one such example.