Radiometric dating as practiced is reliable.

I will not specifically deal with his examples here. Not directly, anyway. The strength of a method lies greatly upon the strength of its assumptions. Therefore, I will challenge the assumptions here first. This is the equation used in physics when calculating the radioactive age of a material (which I am sure we both have used): deltaN = -(lambda)(N)delta(t), where N is the number of radioactive nuclei at time t, lambda is the decay constant and delta is the change in the variable. The decay constant is related to the half-life by the equation T(1/2)=ln 2/lambda It is immediately apparent from these equations that there are several assumptions [2] that are used just for radiometric dating. Cosmic dating is slightly different and I won"t go into that. Assumption 1: There are no daughter isotopes before formation. This is clear from the fact that there are no parameters to account for any daughter nuclei. However, is this assumption tenable? This assumption is not the same as that of the assumption that no parent/daughter nuclei has entered/left after formation. However, for all practical purposes, they are indistinguishable. (I will explain why I think it is untenable later, as it is tied with the next) Assumption 2: If assumption 1 was wrong, we would be able to check out the correct rock age by looking at the other materials. This assumption, more clearly, states that the rate of decay in different materials is comparable. We are thus able to see if one of the materials have too much or too little of the parent/daughter. Is this assumption tenable? [3]For assumptions 1-2, Is it tenable? No it is not. Let me give a hypothetical situation to explain myself. Suppose that there were three rocks formed by the same event. One can be dated using Ar-Ar, another, U-Pb, and the third, radiocarbon. Let us now suppose that all of these contradict assumption 1, in that they all have daughter isotopes/nuclei before formation. Let us also assume that after formation, no contamination occurs. A contamination being the entering/leaving of parent/daughter nuclei. Let us now suppose that all of these rocks give the same age x. Now we can say clearly that the age of the rock is x, and no one can contradict us, because the rocks check it out. However, in this situation, we know that there has been daughter nuclei at formation. However, let us suppose that those doing the dating had no knowledge of this. It is clear from this hypothetical thought-experiment that any future scientist dating rocks from this layer would have to calibrate their dates to align with this first experiment. [4] This is because the first is assumed to be the correct age of the rock, while the others will be assumed to have contamination. This is why all radiometric datings check out with each other. It"s not because they produce the same results, but that they are calibrated [5] to the same results and anomalies are regarded as contamination. This is true in some cases, but is most certainly wrong in others. Now I will move on to the third assumption and hopefully that is the last. Assumption 3: The decay rate is constant This assumption needs no elaboration. It is pretty straightforward. So now let me use a couple of sources to debunk this. It has been experimentally proven that decay rates are affected by electron density at the nucleus and can vary with the chemical environments of the atom. Measurements of decay rates differ by as much as 1.5%. This clearly shows that decay rates are not constant as assumed [6]. Clearly, it is not as much as the creationists would suggest [7], but it does make this assumption untenable. There is also other collaborating evidence that the decay rate is not constant [8]. So why, in the light of all these untenable assumptions, does the dates check out? Does this mean that even if these assumptions were wrong, we would still arrive at the correct dates because they check out? But wait, my thought experiment has already explained this phenomena. It is not a conspiracy, as some would like to believe, it simply is the way science works. Flawed, yes, but we are all human. However, is it reliable? To understand this, I will use another thought experiment. Suppose a man has three sticks. Each of them corroborate with each other, each calls itself a "meter stick," and each in actuality is a hundred centimeters more than a meter long. Let us now suppose that this man is on a barren alien world that has mostly nothing other than sand and a few other sticks of varied lengths. (Well, he"d soon die, but that"s not the point) These other sticks calls themselves "meter sticks" as well, but some range from a few centimeters to several meters. Is this man"s sticks reliable? I mean, he has three sticks which check each other out. Let us now assume that he has this instruction manual that tells him how to build a shelter out of meter long sticks. Sure, maybe the sticks were a little longer and he"d build a structure a little bigger. But no, this hypothetical shelter can only work if it were made from meter long sticks. So, would this shelter be reliable? No it wouldn"t. In the same way, radiometric dating is not reliable. To some readers the phrase "A house of cards" might get the concept through better, but the connotation is totally different. I do not understand you last paragraph. You state that radiometric dating agree with dated archaeological objects, because as far as I know, radiometric dating is used to date archaeological artifacts, so it cannot corroborate something not independent. As to the other points, I have explained why different radiometric dating methods agree, but not why different independent methods agree. I won"t go into that point now because I don"t have space. Now back to you. 1. . http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... 2. I am personally picking these out by means of logic, prior knowledge, and (what I like to call) reverse reasoning, so no sources needed. I am not using any source for these portions, not creationist, even. When there is a source, then I have not picked it out. 3. For the explanation, I will provide some sources to align as closely as possible this thought experiment with actual data. 4. . http://ieeexplore.ieee.org... For something similar, but not entirely the same 5. www. wou. edu/las/physci/taylor/g322/radiometric_dating. pdf (This is rather hard to read due to the format) 6. . http://www.sciencedirect.com... 7. . http://www.sciencemag.org... 8. . http://pubs.acs.org...