Radioactive Dating Is Reliable

I. Dating Against the Historical RecordAgain, my opponent is using a couple of isochron inconsistencies as the main force behind his argument, which I already showed in Round 3 was fallacious. Again, radiometric dating produces results in line with "evolutionary" expectations about 95% of the time. Trying to show that the other 5% disproves that radioactive dating is reliable is incorrect. [1][2]Even so, there is an explanation for the problem my opponent cites. As this article mentions: The scientists did date something as being million of years old, but it wasn't lava. Notice the title of the actual scientific report: Radiogenic Helium and Argon in Ultramafic Inclusions from Hawaii, J. G. Funkhouser and J. J. Naughton, Journal of Geophysical Research 73:14 pp. 4601-4607 (15 July 1968). The important word here is "Inclusions". The scientists were not out to date the lava: they were dating some chunks of olivine that were stuck in the lava like raisins. This lava was not hot enough to melt olivine, so the chunks were carried along when the eruption brought lava up from the depths. Of course the olivine inclusions dated as being old. They are old. "[3]In addition, they weren't even really dating the olivine inclusion, or xenoliths. The paper was able whether or not Potassium/Argon dating should be used on such objects, which they concluded that it shouldn't. K/Ar dating should not be used on xenoliths. But, the article clearly states that the surrounding lava was dated correctly. This article casts no doubts whatsoever on the dating of lava. [3][4]As for my opponent's volcanic rocks problem, he doesn't cite a study, but rather a book that may or may not have cited a study. The author of the book most likely misinterpreted the results, like I mentioned above. In addition, the key word is some, which does not disprove the reliability of radioactive dating. II. Reliability of Diferent MethodsIt was the same sample, in a way. It was from the same Triassic-era event. The 5 meteorites hit the Earth at different locations, but all around the same time (within a few hours). Another way to look at this is by drawing a map. Today, the continents are moving about one inch a year. This is a simple fact which can be measured by anyone with good GPS equipment. So, in 214 million years, the continents could have moved three thousand miles. To get a map of that past world, geologists did K/Ar datings of ancient lava flows. The three main craters form a dead straight line on that map, indicating that they are from the same event. [5][6]My opponent also fails to counter any of my other arguments, such as the comparison of radioactive dating and luminescence dating on the same sample. To conclude, here is a chart showing the various dating methods on a meteorite found in western Greenland: Description Technique Age (in billions of years) Amitsoq gneisses (western Greenland) Rb-Sr isochron 3.70 +/- 0.12 Amitsoq gneisses (western Greenland) 207Pb-206Pb isochron 3.80 +/- 0.12 Amitsoq gneisses (western Greenland) (zircons) U-Pb discordia 3.65 +/- 0.05 Amitsoq gneisses (western Greenland) (zircons) Th-Pb discordia 3.65 +/- 0.08 Amitsoq gneisses (western Greenland) (zircons) Lu-Hf isochron 3.55 +/- 0.22 [7]And the same rock taken back from the Moon on Apollo 11: Description Sample # Technique Age (in billions of years) Apollo 11 - High-K basalt 10072 40Ar/39Ar whole rock 3.49 +/- 0.05 Apollo 11 - High-K basalt 10072 40Ar/39Ar whole rock 3.52 +/- 0.04 Apollo 11 - High-K basalt 10072 40Ar/39Ar plagioclase 3.57 +/- 0.05 Apollo 11 - High-K basalt 10072 40Ar/39Ar plagioclase 3.56 +/- 0.06 Apollo 11 - High-K basalt 10072 40Ar/39Ar ilmenite 3.58 +/- 0.05 Apollo 11 - High-K basalt 10072 40Ar/39Ar pyroxene 3.55 +/- 0.05 Apollo 11 - High-K basalt 10072 Rb-Sr isochron 3.57 +/- 0.05 Apollo 11 - High-K basalt 10072 Sm-Nd isochron 3.57 +/- 0.03 [7]Overall, the different methods do agree with each other. Sources [1]: . http://www.talkorigins.org...[2]: Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1986. Radiometic Dating, Geologic Time and the Age of the Earth: A Reply to "Scientific" Creationism, U. S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 86-110. pp.76. [3]: . http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org...[4]: Funkhouser, J. G. and J. J. NaughtonRadiogenic Helium and Argon in Ultramafic Inclusions from Hawaii, Journal of Geophysical Research 73:14 pp. 4603 (15 July 1968)[5]: . http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org...[6]: Spray, J. , S. Kelley, and D. Rowley. Evidence for a late Triassic Multiple Impact Event on Earth. Nature 392, pp. 171-173 (12 March 1998) [7]: . http://www.gate.net...