Of course, there are many problems with such dating methods, such as parent or daughter substances entering or leaving the rock, as well as daughter product being present at the beginning.Here I want to concentrate on another source of error, namely, processes that take place within magma chambers.PART 1: Back to Basics PART 2: Problems with the Assumptions PART 3: Making Sense of the Patterns This three-part series will help you properly understand radiometric dating, the assumptions that lead to inaccurate dates, and the clues about what really happened in the past.Most people think that radioactive dating has proven the earth is billions of years old.Andrew Kulikovsky spoke on one occasion and John Hartnett spoke on 2 occasions. About half those who are on the committee are YECs and the others doubt the YEC position to various degrees.Jim raised some interesting points but I don’t believe that he addressed the central points that Justin raised.This is consistent with the assumption that each decay event is independent and its chance does not vary over time.
It can be experimentally confirmed that molten Zircon rejects lead.
Although the time at which any individual atom will decay cannot be forecast, the time in which any given percentage of a sample will decay can be calculated to varying degrees of accuracy.
The time that it takes for half of a sample to decay is known as the half life of the isotope.
At their request, physicist Dr Jim Mason, of CMI Canada, reviewed the material from the meeting and his response was published on 2 April 2015 (see Response to Geochronology: Understanding the Uncertainties, a presentation by Dr Justin Payne).
We previously reported an event organized by the Adelaide, Australia, Chapter of Reasonable Faith where Dr Justin Payne, a lecturer within the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide, sought to ‘disprove’ objections to long-age radiometric dating.