Radiometric Dating: Unreliable?

That's a very nice rock, Original Poster.

>>8998554
if you can't figure it out for yourself you should probably off yourself my man

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_lead#Lead-206

>204Pb is entirely primordial, and is thus useful for estimating the fraction of the other lead isotopes in a given sample that are also primordial
>Any excess lead 206, 207, and 208 is thus assumed to be radiogenic in origin

>>8998554
>Do any of these points hold up under scrutiny?
They're all just variations on "I don't know how do do something, therefore no-one else does either".

Ask the yahoo why all the different dating methods give compatible results if all the results are wrong.

>>8998554
>answersingenesis.org
you should go back to /pol/

>>8998558
THIS

>>8999096
not an argument

File: IDiot Bingo.png (72KB, 720x780px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 720x780px

>Do any of these points hold up under scrutiny?
short answer: no
long answer: noooooooooooooooooooo
>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html
>https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4146

combination of two things, really:
1. radiometric dating systems have a minimum age and a maximum age for which their results are reliable. if there's too little of the parent or daughter species to detect, you'll get an erroneously high or low value, respectively, for the age of the sample. this is why, for example, you can't use 14C dating for anything older than ~60 kyr, and why you can't use K-Ar dating for anything younger than ~10 kyr.
2. Creationists don't understand what radiological ages really represent. with the exception of single crystal systems like zircons, which are extremely picky about what they incorporate, there's no guarantee of original (that is, time-of-crystallization) ratios of composition. for whole-rock dating, you're not measuring how long ago the rock crystallized, but rather how long ago the material from which the rock is derived was separated from the homogeneous mantle. this is why two lava flows with millions of years separating them can register similar ages; if they came from the same material in the same magma chamber, they'd give the same results.

>>8999392
Not an argument

>>8999392
>not an argument
Yes it is.