Uranium lead dating

Hi there!
Firstly I want to say, when making a comment, please, try to avoid using this website for me to go and read and answer: www.talkorigins.org. In one debate, I was referenced to this website no less than 5 times, I am getting sick of it, I explain everything, but they just keep throwing it again. From now on, if someone references to talkorigins, I am going to reference to talkorigins rival, www.trueorigins.org They are having war with each other so feel free to go there if you have any questions that you find on talk origins. The one comment was 29+ evidences for macro-evolution. Go here for that answer.

Well, its been a while since I published my first blog entry about carbon dating. I am very happy, I don't get any "proof" for millions of years old that includes carbon dating.

Actually the millions of years doesn't even fit, thanks to the 50 000 years limit, and all the ticks, so anything older than 50 000 years won't even give a single tick, so I don't know where they get that information from.

Anyway, now I'm not getting blasted with carbon dating, now I'm getting blasted with uranium lead dating! Well there are more than 20 dating methods so I suspects I am going to get blasted with allot of them, helium dating, lead 210 dating, racemization dating, astronomical dating, paleomagnetic dating I'm sure I'm going to get tackled with all of them, so I better get ready for it.

Uranium lead dating is pretty interesting, unlike carbon dating uranium lead dating has 2 separate decay chains. The one has a half life of 4,47 billion years and the other a half life of 704 billion years. I'm not going into any detail with all this like I did with carbon dating, it has the basics of carbon dating so I'm sure you will be able to follow if you read the carbon dating article. If you want more information on it get a book on it.

First there are a few things that every radiodating method assumes.
#1. Each system has to be a closed system or the dating will be thrown off. Ideally, in order to do this, each specimen tested needs to have been sealed in a jar with thick lead walls for all its previous existence, supposedly millions of years! In nature, there is no such thing as a closed system. One piece of rock cannot for millions of years be sealed off from other rocks, as well as from water, chemicals, and changing radiations from outer space. So immediately that tells you radiodating methods are not very accurate.

#2. Each system must initially have contained none of its daughter products. A piece of uranium 238 must
originally have had no lead or other daughter products in it. If it did, this would give a false date reading.
But this assumption can in no way be confirmed. It is impossible to know what was initially in a given piece of
radioactive mineral. Was it all of this particular radioactive substance or were some other indeterminate or final daughter products mixed in? We do not know; we cannot know. People can guess, come up with some dates, announce the consistent ones, and hide the rest, which is exactly what evolutionary scientists do! Not that long ago they dated dinosaur bones, the results gave them a few thousand years. (Which is what I believed from the start) what did they do? Throw out the dinosaur bones and conclude dinosaur bones are to old to be carbon dated. No, its not to old to be carbon dated, your dating method is faulty and you can't accept the truth. And its been known that the radiodating methods date things back to much. It would be interesting to hear scientists defend themselves on why they throw out some things. Because currently it works like this:
If the age sample is known, radiometric dating does not work, if the age sample is unknown, it is assumed that radiometric dating works. And you call that science? I would seriously find new dating methods to support your theory.

#3. The decay rate must always have been constant. These rates can change or vary with a change in certain conditions. The biggest mistake with the radiometric dating is the assumption that the decay rate has always been the same. But it is a known fact among scientists that such changes in decay rates can and do occur. Laboratory testing has established that such resetting of specimen clocks does happen. Field evidence reveals that decay rates have indeed varied in the past. The decay rate of any radioactive mineral can be altered if the mineral is bombarded by high energy particles from space, if there is, for a time, a nearby radioactive mineral emitting radiation, if physical pressure is brought to bear upon the radioactive mineral, if certain chemicals are brought in contact with it. John Joly, spent years studying pleochroic halos emitted by radioactive substances. In his research he found evidence that the long half-life minerals have varied in their decay rate in the past!

#4. If any change occurred in past ages in the blanket of atmosphere surrounding our planet, this would greatly affect the clocks in radioactive minerals. We know that the oxygen long ago was different than it is today, evolutionists and creationists both agree with this. Most evolutionists say: "Everything seems to have been bigger in the Jurassic age." Most creationists say: "Everything seems to have been bigger before the flood." The only explanation for everything being bigger would be if there was more oxygen and if the oxygen was under more pressure than it is today. Thats the only way that I know of that something can grow as big like a dinosaur. From my point of view, the bible says there was a firmament above the earth. So it is suggested that before the flood there was a water or ice layer above the earth, this is physically possible, and should that be true then the oxygen would be put under more pressure etc. I would like an evolutionists point of view on why everything grew larger in the Jurassic age.

Problems like that just come up and up, all that with just the types of radiometric dating methods. So with all my other radiometric dating posts, I am going to reference to this page. As this is the same for all radiometric dating methods. Now back to uranium lead dating. I have already discussed a few problems with it above. Now uranium lead, specific problems.

#1. Lead could originally have been mixed in with the uranium or thorium. This is very possible, and even likely. It is only an assumption that integral or adjacent lead could only be an end product. When a uranium sample is tested for dating purposes, it is assumed that the entire quantity of lead in it is “daughter-product lead”.

#2. Part of the uranium and its daughter products could previously have leached out. This would drastically affect the dating of the sample. Lead, in particular, can be leached out by weak acid solutions.

#3. There can be inaccurate lead ratio comparisons, due to different types of lead within the sample. Correlations of various kinds of lead in the specimen is done to improve dating accuracy. But errors can and do occur here also. Rock known to be less than 300 years old is variously dated between 50 million and 14.5 billion years of age! That is a 14-billion year error in dating! Yet such radiodating techniques continue to be used in order to prove long ages of earth’s existence. Sample datings from a single uranium deposit in the Colorado Caribou Mine  yielded an error spread of 700 million years.Its like I said previously, if the age sample is known, it does not work, but if the age sample is unknown, it is assumed to work. Get a serious problem here.

#4. Melvin Cooke suggests that the radiogenic lead isotope 207 could actually have been formed from lead 206, simply by having captured free neutrons from neighboring rock. In the same manner, lead 208 could have been formed by the capture of free neutrons from lead 207. Cooke checked out this possibility by extensive investigation and came up with a sizeable quantity of data indicating that practically all radiogenic lead in the earth’s crust could have been produced in this way instead of by uranium or thorium decay!

#5. According to evolutionary theory, the earth was originally molten. But, if true, molten rocks would produce a wild variation in clock settings in radioactive materials. “Why do the radioactive ages of lava beds, laid down within a few weeks of each other, differ by millions of years?”Glen R. Morton. It is a well-known fact, by nuclear researchers, that intense heat damages radiodating clock settings, yet the public is solemnly presented with dates of rocks indicating long ages of time when, in fact, the evolutionary theory of the origin of rocks would render those dates totally useless.

In some of my previous debates I have started showing things from evolution that contradicts itself. Not just its dating methods, the theory itself. I don't know whats happening, but some how those contradictions just never seem to come up. There is a contradiction on how the stars formed, there is a contradiction in your dating methods, there is a contradiction with regards to matter and anti-matter.

Well, thats all for this article, thanks for reading!
-Martin