Joined: Sep. 2006
|Quote (improvius @ Sep. 23 2006,09:29)|
|Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 23 2006,09:15)|
Do you accept the basic science of crystal formation? If not why not?
I think another important question would be whether or not Dave accepts the basic science of half-lives and daughter elements. He probably doesn't, since that alone would blow his 6000-year hypothesis.
I think Dave is working another angle on this. He thinks if he can discredit the "assumption" of original daughter isotopic concentration in radiometric age analysis then he doesn't have to state the classic fundy line of "accellerated decay rates in the past" to explain the measured half-lives. (even though ericmurphy has tried to get Dave to say this)
JonF or ericmurphy have already pummelled him with Ar-Ar dating techniques (which are self-correcting to original daughter isotopes) but Dave has ignored this MANY times.
Don't hold back. State what you truly believe about crystal formation and radioisotopic half-lives.