I'm thinking you didn't look at any of the links I posted for radiometric dating CTD, am I right?
Blind tests are done as standard procedure in ALL FIELDS of REAL SCIENCE.
Did I say that it's never done in radiometric dating?
I did say it, and you know it's true. What kind of illusion of an argument are you trying to make?
I even explained to you how you could go do it.
You don't have to explain how blind testing could be conducted to anyone who understands the term 'blind test' in the first place. What kind of ninnies do you take the readership for?
I said,
you do it with several methods and you do them on individual minerals separated from the rocks.
You said,
False. Different methods are used for different kinds of rock. You can't use several evodating methods on any sample.
You seem to be deeply mistaken here.
Baloney! The most you'll generally see is two kinds of tests, perhaps three on any sample. The rock has to contain the Ar or the U or whatever other chemical you're looking for. Many don't contain any of them.
While there are some exceptions, generally you can use any kind of method that works for the age of the rock and perform it as many times as you want, using different laboratories if you like, since that can work as a good control. (You really didn't look at any of those links I posted did you.) You can also date individual minerals in the rocks. What's more, lava can also contain xenoliths, which are impurities that did not fully melt and whose isotopic clocks have not been reset. You have to remove these or you will get a false old age for the rock. Creationists trying to "prove" that radiometric dating gives dates which are way too old, such as Steve Austin, have been known not to separate the xenoliths from their samples -- a "mistake" no honest geologist would make. It's quite easy to date a xenolith and a pure sample separately.
Pure smoke, if not outright deliberate lies. You can't run a test for chemicals that aren't in the sample. Which of your links claims you can?
Mighty big 'if', and even then, it's only really good if the assumptions are good.
Scientists routinely run more than one test, using more than one type of dating method, on samples.
Hah! 'Routinely' must mean something different to you than the rest of us. Care to dig up a percentage? Or care to take a guess & maybe I'll dig one up? 'Routinely' to the rest of us means most of the time - not 5 or 6 per cent.
If there is consilience then that's a pretty good indication you've got a genuine age. Some important samples such as moon rocks have been dated many times over. You really should have a look at the links I posted.
What makes you think I haven't? Looking at hype is not automatically sufficient to convince me falsehood is truth.
Like you criticizing creation models?
You're funny. It's not hard to understand "there was a global flood" or "the earth is 6,000 years old." The problem is that I also know some real science and the real science points to evidence that these claims are wrong.
Thanks for demonstrating the extent of your understanding of creationism and the science backing it up.
I've read some other sources as well. Have you?
Sure. When people are in total avoidance mode here I'll sometimes look at AiG or similar. It's just as well to see what they're trying to claim now. Sometimes it's good for a laugh.
But apparently you don't retain anything. Then again, I have to wonder how much you can even see when you visit AiG. Being "conveniently" blind to 3/4 of the words, I expect their sentences do look mighty funny to you. Any sample of writing with that much deleted would be good for laughs & unintelligible.
As for your promise to show that radioactive decay rates are always the same, it betrays that you do not understand science. I have presented two solid cases where multiple measurements were taken with great care, and the rates were observed to change. Even if
every other measurement ever taken to date fit your claim, it would still be
falsified by the evidence I presented. Don't you get that? Somehow I doubt it. I begin to doubt you can even see it.
