Radiometric dating as practiced is reliable.

That being said, I will move on to the arguments. You bring up the argument about tape measurements. The assumptions that you have brought up have nothing to do with how radiometric dating is performed. Why? This is because there is a known start/end point for the tape. Radiometric dating only has the end point. This is tied to the first assumption I brought up. I am sure that if errors were discovered, they would be corrected. I"m not suggesting that there is a conspiracy to give false dates in any way. However, the assumptions I have mentioned can never be exposed as giving a "wrong" date simply because it is a basic assumption and . That being said, I will defend my arguments. In the first paragraph, you are not talking at all about daughter nuclei/isotopes. Instead, you are talking about something with which I do not dispute. You state that "the gas is purged when the material is molten. " However, this is an assumption and has, so far as I could research, never been experimentally proven. (If you do know of a source where this has been proven, please do cite it) You have cited the example of crystals in relation to the an assumption which I did not make an argument out of. This assumption deals with the entering/leaving of nuclei after formation. My argument was based on the daughter nuclei/isotope argument, which even if you are right in the case of Ar-Ar and K-Ar (which you are not, as far as my research led me), you would still not be right in the case of U-Pb, by any means. So now (since my argument about daughter isotopes present BEFORE formation has not been addressed) I will discuss the corroboration of dates. However, I will backtrack a little here. I have found, contrary to the assumption that gas is purged, that there are bad dates from K-Ar dating. [1] From 1, the given dates were discarded because "The age obtained, however, 95 m. y. (Table 1), is geologically unrealistic, for absence of sediment cover, the freshness of the rock and the ages of associated rocks all point to a late Tertiary origin. " But why were the dates discarded? Simply because it did not agree with other rock ages. However, since the two dates do not agree, one must be correct. But note that the argument that this particular age is contaminated is an assumption. Furthermore, it is circular reasoning. What is circular reasoning? [2] It is repeating the premise in a different form as the conclusion. To relate this to the argument at hand, "If a date is wrong, we can test it with associated dates. The date is wrong because we tested it with associated dates. " This is the argument in its simplest form. (If you do not agree, please provide a reason) A question now arises, "Do the dates really agree? " Firstly, I will defend myself. I did not imply anything like "scientists systematically throw away data that does not confirm the results they want to get. " Neither do I say that the dates are forced to agree in the sense you make it. Like I said and as [1] would collaborate, anomalous dates are counted as contamination or false in some way or the other. I will state here, clearly, that I do not believe dates will always disagree. In most cases they do agree. Thus, I agree mostly with your point that dates are not forced to agree. This however, does not disagree with my statements either. I will give one example of why I hold to this view. From [3], we find an example of highly discrepant ages. "[The authors] report Sm"Nd and Rb"Sr mineral isochron ages of amphibolite from the schist belt. The Sm"Nd and Rb"Sr ages are 824 " 43 Ma and 481 " 16 Ma, respectively. " How is this data explained? "The Sm"Nd age indicates the timing of peak metamorphism, whereas the Rb"Sr age indicates the Pan-African thermal overprint. The peak metamorphism was related to collision of the Eastern Ghats terrane with the Dharwar-Bastar craton, which occurred during early Neoproterozoic time. " But. Is there any evidence for either occurrence? None at all. This is one of the reasons why I hold to the view that dates are "re-calibrated" to fit certain dates. This kind of articles is what I regularly find in journals such as RadioCarbon [4], which is a very good journal to read, actually. I will now address the concerns about my sources. My previous round"s [4] clearly stated that it was something similar, but not the same. Your argument regarding my [8] still does not address the point that the decay rate is not constant, which argument I will defend following. However, I will first address the argument relating to my statement "the assumption is that the decay rates in different minerals is comparable. " You have brought up some facts which I do not disagree with. This, however, does not in any way negate my statements. Here"s why. By comparable decay rates, I meant that the decay rates could be checked out against each other and that if one of the dates were wrong, the other ages could be compared with the anomalies. This in itself has to assume that the rate of decay is somehow comparative, not similar, to each other. Now to the argument regarding variance in decay rates. I do not know the purpose of the phrase ". .. which con correctly cites. .. " Now I will use data from more recently than Baylor, which has a latest reference of 2004. My source will be from 2010. [5] Quite simply, long-term observation of Si32 and Ra226 show slight fluctuation during different seasons. (This is something you"ve said, but did not cite) Now I have said that these fluctuations are very small, which is something you"ve proceeded to repeat. This, however, does not address my argument that decay rates are not constant. In fact, it is something you agree with. Now I will briefly discuss the implications of a non-constant decay rate. Current dates must be remeasured to account for this data. It is a known prediction, so widely so that it is held to be fact, that the sun will eventually sputter and die out [6]. By logical syllogism, we can see that the sun was much hotter in the past, and that it logically would have produced much more flares than the present. Sun flares are directly linked to the change in rates. [7] Since there would have been much more activity in the past, it is logical to conclude that the rates in the past were much different than it is now. After reading Libby"s lecture, I am still of the same opinion as I was before. This is because it does not address my question. Radiocarbon dating is frequently "archaeologically unacceptable" [8]. This is because the archaeologist does not agree with the radiocarbon dating as compared to his other methods of dating. Radiocarbon dates has to fit into the expected age or be discarded [9]. This is clear proof that radioactive dating is not reliable but do on many occasions fit the correct dates. Such as that found by Libby. I would like to note a few problems with your sourcing. In the section "How do we know that cross-checking is not forced to agree? " You have a reference 6, then 2, 3, and 7. You provide links for 6 and 7, but not for 2/3. Your 6,7 are quite abrupt in that there is no 5,4, or 1. Thanks. I"m out of space. 1. . http://www.nature.com... 2. . http://ksuweb.kennesaw.edu... 3. . http://geolmag.geoscienceworld.org... 4. . http://www.radiocarbon.org... 5. . http://news.stanford.edu... 6. . http://www.enchantedlearning.com... 7. Ref. 5 8. . http://www.radiocarbon.com... 9 Ibid