Radiometric Dating is not reliable

Con concedes that C-14 dating is unreliable! In regards to my first argument on C-14 con replys; "this does not refute radiometric dating, only a kind of it." - the "kind of it" that con is referring to is C-14 dating.Actually, it does not refute a kind of it at all. C-14 dating is not intended for things older than 50,000 years old. [1] Trying to say that it is unreliable because it cannot do things that it is not intended to do is like saying that a lawyer is dumb because he couldn't score 10 goals in a basketball hoop."Widely discordant dates are the rule, not the exception."con simply replies If the methods were producing completely "haywire" results at random due to contamnation, such a pattern of concordant results would not be expected.but that's what I just said was happening"Widely discordant dates are the rule, not the exception."so we completely disagree on this point but neither of us has proven anything one way or the other. That quote was directed towards the contamination argument. Actually, they had measured the age of many asteroids with radiometric dating, and they had agreeing dates:4 4.21 +/- 0.76 4.37 +/- 0.34 4.50 +/- 0.02 4.43 +/- 0.04 4.52 +/- 0.04 4.59 +/- 0.06 4.44 +/- 0.12 4.38 +/- 0.12 4.49 +/- 0.02 4.46 +/- 0.06 4.51 +/- 0.04 4.44 +/- 0.13 4.53 +/- 0.19 4.44 +/- 0.30 4.57 +/- 0.19 4.45 +/- 0.18 4.57 +/- 0.21 Source: [2]finally, I said NO SEMANTICS!! you think you defeated the candle analogy but how about the swimming race one? you failed to mention that one. see, I included two so you couldn't twist words around to get a solution. It wasn't semantics. I never twisted the definitions of words. The swimming race one does not apply to radiometric dating, because there is nothing to measure, while radiometric dating has constant decay rates to measure. I proved that they were constant last round. What the radiometric dating method is measuring is the "wax". Saying that it is a stupid semantic is not a valid response, because you are basically makinga logical fallacy:FritzStemmbeger's fallacy:P1. The way radiometric dating works is a stupid semantic in my opinion. P2. My opinions must be true.C: Radiometric dating is false. Thus: Radiometric dating is too flawed to be trustworthy and is un-reliable.wildly discordant dates are produced and then selected from to fit pre concieved ideas, which I will likely show in the next round. No, you made a logical fallacy and also did not respond to my rebuttals on the assumptions. Also, different dating methods are used to date a rock, and the results are as follows, they agree to eachother:[3] Saint Severin 4 samples Sm-Nd 4.55 +/- 0.33 10 samples Rb-Sr 4.51 +/- 0.15 whole rock Ar-Ar 4.43 +/- 0.04 whole rock Ar-Ar 4.38 +/- 0.04 whole rock Ar-Ar 4.42 +/- 0.04 My opponent's arguments were rebutted, he only attempted to refute some of the rebuttals, the following arguments were conceded by my opponent:2.) The process rate of decay is assumed to have remained constant throughout billions of years.3.) It is assumed that no radiogenic daughter products were present when the minerals were first formed.Then he contends his case is true. "His" arguments were either refuted or conceded by himself, therefore his conclusion is unsubstantiated.Pro has posted no evidence that radiometric dating isunreliable. Instead he copied his first few arguments from a book and the last one from http://creation.com... . [1]http://science.howstuffworks.com...[2]Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1991,The Age ofThe Earth California, Stanford University Press. 474 pp. [3]http://www.talkorigins.org...