How accurate is radiometric dating?

In that - You propose that my (Intangible) reality Needs to be abandoned - So other 'readers' (I Never assume a conversation is with other than the poster, I respond to) might attune to 'your' particular brand of 'Normalcy'.

That's not allowing 'Everyone has a 'right' (Whatever that means...? Is allowed to, on behalf of?) to live in a 'reality of their own choosing' what you imply.

I'm not 'directing' anyone to pursue ... anything - I'm just responding.

There's 'having a conversation' and there's 'playing to the crowd/audience/worshippers of that, that derives from YOU'.

namaste

I didn't at all suggest that you need to abandon your reality, Mark. It obviously makes you happy and is meaningful to you. Our conversations never seem very interesting to me (your view of reality is a little too far from mine). But I am OK with that.

My only concern is that the OP, or anyone reading, understand that your posts have nothing to do with Science (as understood by the scientific community).

HEY MARK!! Just in case you pay attention to other people besides yourself, Radiometric dating ( having nothing to do with meet-upping) was discovered by a CHEMIST , so, as a trained geochemist and Economic geologist, I feel familiar with the coveys and corners about the technique than a mathematician who doesnt know chemistry--although I often do derive a lot of ordinary differential equations-( However I mostly use excel when I have to make excessively long model expansions)IS THAT OK??

You can sound a whole lot more informed about radiometric dating by reading K W Lee's Geochronological Methods(in the AGI handbook), or Roger Wiens Radiometric Dating from a Christian Perspective or Frank Steiger's Radioactive Dating . I often used these as class guides for my intro students and , while they dont get into the machinery and lab methods involved, they are excellent mathematical explanations for majors (If youve gone through diff equations they're pretty strait forward and accessible.)

PS isotopes do disintegrate at varying rates within a fairly set range, so our uses of specific decay constants are actually longer term expansions of a simple dN/dt= (Lambda), where N is the number of isotopes we strt with per unit time in seconds(dt) and (Lambda) is the resultant decay constant. Decay constants are often rerun vry decae or so by longer times (t) and our decay constants do change by the 10th to the 11th decimal place if we need to be more accurate to the nearest BILLION years. SO I THINK WE MAY HAVE TAKEN ALL THAT INTO ACCOUNT, pretty Clever that Berty Boltwood eh?

So how many of you here have done radiometric dating of igneous rocks before?

All of us. Even Mark.

So what do the results come back like?

Wow, was not expecting such a sudden response, just finding out some info.

Im sure gunga will show up with his 20000 yr old stegosaurs

I think I saw right through you Blue Grass. You think Jesus is Lord.

Tell me I am wrong.

No, you're not wrong, I am a Christian but also a seeker of truth. Given you guys stand by radiometric dating, I'm interested to know what sort of results you get back from the dating laboratories.

I DON'T 'stand' for 'RD'.
I 'Support' it as a 'tool' - But class it as 'only' relevant in and of the observation (Redeemingly exponential) thereof - Defunk'd thereafter.

Bob Wiens "Radiometric Dating from a Christian Perspective" is a great piece of science writing and its understandable . You can have your religious worldview supported by good hard reproducible science,Id recommend it. The only thing that may be disturbing is if you believe the world is in the hundreds of thousand s of years old, Its much much older and many lines of evidence support it not just radiometric dating.

all radiometric dating (with exception of disequilibrium methods) use several means to convert radiometric ages to "calendar ages" (INTCAL13 is probably the most useful and forensically explainable for C14/C13).All other methods have longer formats for quality control and sampling and sample prep and results as well as std deviation baseline limits, sample repeat ability, etc. Many labs will NOT take samples with no provenance and detailed reports of sampling anymore. Many labs got bad press for doing C14 on dinosaur bones because they should have known better about the limits of reporting for C14 and the actual ages of dinosaurs.

I always use at least 3 different labs and make sure project budgets are so designd for the extra "cost hits"

I disagree.
Dendochronology is accurate - Yet assumes annual traverse.

dendrochronology , at its max, cant go much beyond 5 K years with very accurate cross plotting.
I like dendrochronology to valuate contaminant migration from gold ore trackle heap or copper sulfate plumes or acid in ground water or historic flood events from our colonial periods on up . Its more accurate to help us determine ages of environmental damage.
AS far as accurate dating its ok for very recent damage volumes but hell, you can get a newspaper that gives you the date of a spill or rainstorm.

When you specified igneous rock in your challenge here it seemed you were setting a childish trap rather than respecting and listening to the expertise here. I have a physics degree. I haven't worked directly with dating, but I studied how decay works and have done radiological work in the lab.

Farmerman is an actual geological. He has real expertise and experience on the topic.

I was a very religious Christian in an earlier stage of my life including when I was studying Physics. I have wrestled with how to fit Faith and Science.

If you want to discuss this with an open mind, I have experience on both sides of this issue.

I did end up deciding that biblical Christianity is at odds with modern science, and that science ultimately makes more sense.

FM - I'm good (In my physical evaluation of existence) with ALL dating processes - 'Curium into U238 was a revelation - I long awaited:) - But I disagree on 'PRECISION' - THEY ARE FALLIBLE.
Thus 'highly accurate' - Not guaranteed.
And dendro, like odontolo can hit 7k 'supposedly' - NIU sco-pine.

Question - What 'RF' frequency deconstitutes solid 'granite' into liquid?

Farmerman, don't bother with Mark. Everyone here knows that what he posts is nonsense.

It might be interesting to explain the difference between accuracy and precision if someone else were confusing the two, but with Mark it is a waste of time.

FM has his reasons.
Why do you wish to deprive him of such?

Are you his 'life' advisor?

Allow me to drag you back 12,600 years (YD - Minumum) - Sea-levels -400ft - Did the Nile-source have precipitation?
How old is the Nile?
Teach me with 'precise' RC-dating, please?