On behalf of at least my own sanity, and that of the people who so patiently explained the misunderstandings that @r_speir had - please don’t get back into that!
That said, I definitely agree with the sentiment of your post
Your review breaks rules. It is biased. It is presumptuous because it asserts a ‘science’ that is not legitimate. Radiometric dating is not a science. It is a pseudoscience based on evolutionary bias.
Sorry, you aren’t going to win that one. Just about everything you have said about radiometric dating is wrong. I have even shown you multiple studies demonstrating that contamination is not a problem, and yet you still claim contamination is a problem:
This is a new method they invented to date young eruptions in order to save face and appear to keep the science legitimate. It is Ar-Ar dating. As long as they know the approximate dates of these eruptions beforehand, they can adjust what they need to in order to arrive at convincing ages.
You are far too trusting of the flawed ‘science’ of radio dating. This will help explain the newly invented Ar-Ar scheme:
"The 40Ar/39Ar method only measures relative dates. In order for an age to be calculated by the 40Ar/39Ar technique, the J parameter must be determined by irradiating the unknown sample along with a sample of known age for a standard. Because this (primary) standard ultimately cannot be determined by 40Ar/39Ar, it must be first determined by another dating method." (emphasis mine)
We should be able to trust all dating techniques, including K-Ar if radiometric dating is so accurate as you seem to believe. The very fact that all samples and all techniques do not return similar ages is due to contamination. You should employ more scrutiny regarding the things you so quickly believe.
And here is further proof that radiometric dating is an elaborate scheme:
Notice the glaring gap in eruptions from approx 2000 years ago to 12.9 ka. Where are all the missing eruptions in that 10,000 year gap?
You are far too trusting. If you are a real scientist, this data should greatly concern you.
We know of plenty of volcanos between 2K years ago and 13K years ago, just none big enough to make the list. I showed you a paper just a few days ago correlating volcanic eruptions with Lake Suigetsu varves ranging from 4K years ago to 150K years ago, remember?
In that table are 187 measurements of age that all agree with one another. Those measurements are spread across 3 different methods, 3 different minerals, 6 different labs, and across 5 locations. The 3 different methods use different isotopes with different decay rates and different decay processes. THEY ALL AGREE.
The rebuttal to your argument is right in front of you and you are too blind to see it? Why does it take 187 measurements to get just a handful of dates? ANSWER: Radiometric dating does not work.
If contamination is not present, every sample date should confirm every other sample date. You are a victim of confirmation bias. Sorry, but the very thing you accuse YECs of, you yourself cannot overcome.
By the way, why the 10,000 year gap that I pointed out in the history of volcanic activity on the planet?
Look at the first 4 entries on the table. The first entry has 52 analyses with an error of 0.1. The third entry down has just 2 analyses with an error of 0.2. With just two analyses the error represents the actual spread of the 2 data points which would be 0.4 million years. That’s less than a 1% error rate. There are also entries with a single analyis with a low error rate.
I think we can let everyone here decide who is the trustworthy person in this discussion.
The third entry down has just 2 analyses with an error of 0.2. With just two analyses the error represents the actual spread of the 2 data points which would be 0.4 million years. That’s less than a 1% error rate. There are also entries with a single analyis with a low error rate.
Because the rest of your post is irrelevant until you know that the 52 dates were. What were the 52 raw dates? You are the one making us re-run the entire analysis because you refuse to admit what the original errors were.
What are the specific 52 dates? Answer: you do not know and they are not going to tell you. If they did, it would only prove my point that radio dating is all over the place and not a reliable science to any degree.
The third entry down has just 2 analyses with an error of 0.2. With just two analyses the error represents the actual spread of the 2 data points which would be 0.4 million years. That’s less than a 1% error rate. There are also entries with a single analyis with a low error rate.