Dodge again CTD.

So then who would need to get credit?

Do you need to? It's just chemical reactions.

So no one needs to give anyone credit when new rocks are formed. Thanks for clearing that up.

No, it's common creationist assertion and some documented misuse of dating methods. Any method can be misused, so when the results of such misuse are used to disprove the method all it shows is (a) that the person doing it intentionally misused the method, and (b) pretends that it isn't misused to (c) delude gullible people that don't know better.

True, and if you read the actual literature about the physical and chemical processes you will see that what they are dating is the time of formation of the new rock from old matter by the physical and chemical changes that occur.

Congratulations, btw, as you just showed that the material that the earth is made up from is older than any of the radiometric dates for any object of evidence that has been dated.

Which says nothing about the substantial time that is covered by the evidence.

And if they are not invalidated then they are ... (what's the opposite of invalidated?)? The other thing that these correlations do is they invalidate the concept that the methods are wildly inaccurate, what they show is the range of errors in the systems, the tolerance of the measurements. Even with inaccuracies of 10% there is still plenty of evidence that the world is billions of years old.

They apply physics and chemistry as we know it today and they end up with consistently correlated dates at every layer, they correlate for depth in the calcite, the amount of thorium present and the amount of protactinium, and it just all happens to end up with the same age. Consistant, layer by layer by layer by layer.

"Highly correlated" is a relative term based on correlation factors.

http://torque.oncloud8.com/archives/000579.html
You can probably find other sources on statistics, and then we can talk about what the "r" value is and how it is calculated ... we don't know whether they are talking 0.80 or 0.99 ...

and it really is just another added correlation to the correlations between layers of calcite, levels of thorium and levels of protactinium, from an entirely different source, but still showing substantially the same results.

If we assume it is 0.80 then -- as a worst case -- the age of the Devil's hole calcite is 567,700 +/-20% -- or from 454,160 to 681,240 years old -- still way older than any YEC model I am aware of.

Do you think there is anything that is absolutely insoluble in water? Certainly what they can do is measure the relative solubility of different elements etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insoluble
What we have here is an isotope that is very soluble decaying into one that is substantially less (a lot less) soluble, and thus you have deposition of the new isotope atoms on the substrate, where they get locked in place by the calcite.

Sadly for you this is a totally false statement. Very simply, the "1/4 life" would be the time it takes for a sample to decay to the point where only 1/4 of the original amount is left. This would take the same time, and end up at the same concentration, as waiting for 2 half-lives of any isotope.

If you want, I can go through the math and prove it (this is math now).

Correct, and curiously you would still end up with the same time span for the ages of the calcite layers by thorium and identical ages for the calcite layers by protactinium.

And, curiously, the entire universe is unperturbed by your lack of confidence. No radioactive atoms sit up waiting for you to approve their decay.

Which is still irrelevant to the issue of calcite deposits and actual quantities of thorium and protactinium that all agree on the age vs depth correlation. You can use any of the formulas they give and you end up with the same results: 567,700 years.

Logical conclusions based on evidence.

That's fine, just don't forget that there is a lot here left unanswered.

Enjoy.