David Plaisted - The Radiometric Dating Game Tim Thompson - Kevin R.
Henke: Comments on David Plaisted's "The Radiometric Dating Game" (Part 1) David Plaisted - A Reply to Dr. Henke: Comments on David Plaisted's "The Radiometric Dating Game" (Part 2) David Plaisted - A Further Reply to Dr. Henke: Comments on David Plaisted's "The Radiometric Dating Game" (Part 3) David Plaisted - Another Reply to Dr. Henke John Woodmorappe - Mythology of Modern Dating Methods Simon Kelley - K-Ar and Ar-Ar Dating Science vs Evolution - Jean de Pontcharra: Are Radioactive-dating methods reliable?
Absolute dates do not necessarily tell us precisely when a particular cultural event happened, but when taken as part of the overall archaeological record they are invaluable in constructing a more specific sequence of events.
Special emphasis is on demonstrating that discrepant results are not the exception, but the rule, and that arguments used to justify so-called good dates are, when closely examined, arbitrary and without foundation. But the reality of the day is that any method based on assumptions can never offer absolute results.
All radiometric dating methods rely upon important assumptions usually not mentioned by evolutionists... rely on these few basic assumptions: - Beginning Conditions Known - Beginning Ratio of Daughter to Parent Isotope Known (zero date problem) - Constant Decay Rate - No Leaching or Addition of Parent or Daughter Isotopes - All Assumptions Valid for Billions of Years - There is also a difficulty in measuring precisely very small amounts of the various isotopes What most people dont realize, or at least dont discuss, is that Ar/Ar method is not an absolute dating method.
Because this (primary) standard ultimately cannot be determined by 40Ar/39Ar, it must be first determined by another isotopic dating method. while it is often easy to determine the age of the primary standard by the K/Ar method, it is difficult for different dating laboratories to agree on the final age.
Fission track dating is calibrated (the zeta calibration) using rocks of known ages.
However, this statistical likelihood is not assumed, it is tested, usually by using other methods (e.g., other radiometric dating methods or other types of fossils), by re-examining the inconsistent data in more detail, recollecting better quality samples, or running them in the lab again.
That current understanding of the geological time scale is the result of 200 years of evolutionary bias, circular reasoning and the blind acceptance of unprovable uniformitarianism within the world of mainstream science.
The result is that radiometric dating in general is in danger of being based on circular reasoning.
The K-Ar method is the only decay scheme that can be used with little or no concern for the initial presence of the daughter isotope.
Anything that Ai G publishes, in its print publications or on its website, is always reviewed and checked thoroughly before being published. Therefore, I would question the cogency of any refutations that have appeared on Talk