| ... some surfaces, such as those of the icy satellites of Jupiter and Saturn, may not yield rocks that are datable by current isotopic techniques. https://history.nasa.gov/SP-467/ch3.htm |
You might remember that my wording was a little different. It's not a dating of all the different objects in the entire solar system, just 'radioisotope dating of the solar system' as a whole, since the solar system formed pretty much at the same time (right?). By dating the rocky bits of it that have not been molten 'recently' that we can get our hands on, we can know the age. So meteorites, generally.
The origin of meteorites is the earth. http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Asteroids2.html#wp16721728
One of my points is that dating meteorites is dating earth rocks. Neither are valid dates. Radiometric dating is a myth that you and others love regardless of the fundamental assumptions that are invalid.
Your question begging to duly note. You continue to push your ASSUMED millions of years.
Was that the point of the video? Did they discuss radioisotope dating in detail? I don't remember that.
No kind of guess, I'm afraid. Widmanstatten crystals like these cannot be made in the laboratory. They do, literally take millions of years to form, only in circumstances of cooling at a rate of between 10,000 and 100oC per 1000,000 years, taking no more than about 10 million years, and they are a characteristic of meteorites. They are not found on earth anywhere except inside meteorites, and according to their chemical composition they were not formed from the material of the earth. You can read the abstract of the paper here, which also relates the formation of these patterns to protoplanetary accretion mechanisms.
Let's start there. What unprovable assumptions are the killers for radioisotope dating, as far as you are concerned?
Indeed! The "theory of evolution" is all about wildly unsupportable extrapolation. They show one supposed beneficial mutation and SEE that's all that's needed to turn a mythological single-celled creature into everything!
Well, although I did mean to ask what was the point of you posting it in response to a question that it doesn't appear to address, now you mention it: what is the point of the video at all?
And how are they unprovable assumptions, and how are they killers for the idea of radioisotope dating?
Can you give a specific relevant example?
The calculated error in the radioisotope measurement of the age of the solar system is +/- 1%.
It's a bit of a confused rant, isn't it. But he is right about taking a trend with a relatively wide margin of error and extrapolating. It's exactly the same problem with the attempts creationists have made to extrapolate backwards what they believe are changes in the rate of beta decay. They applied an exponential curve to an experimentally dodgy set of old data, and magically came up with an age of the earth of a few thousands of years. You could choose a different mathematical model and come up with hundreds of millions of years, and still be wrong. Exponential curves will get you just about any answer you desire.
