Certain isotopic tests should not be used in specific cases based upon the following reasoning. ALL atoms of a specific element have the same number of protons in their nucleus.However they they have differing numbers of neutrons based upon whicheverisotope they are. U-238 has 3 more neutrons than U-235 bt the same number of protons. Protons determines its atomic number and protons plus neutrons is its atomic mass. We can calculate the age of an isotope by a simple relationship
log (F)=(N/H) log(0.5).F=fraction of an isotope that remains;H= an isotopes half life;N=number of years isotope has been in the sample of (whatever media were interested in). If we can accurately measure the amount of element in a sample when it was emplaced the manner of age detn is merely a matter of good lab technique and sufficiently accurate GC/MS's . The amount that has been in the sample since it was emplaced is easily determined by comparing it to other isotopes (non rad) of the same element, Tey were, at emplacement roughly all the same. So by determining a ratio of what was there at the outst, we can determine. We use K/Ar technique based upon the 3 principle isotopes (that constitute a common ratio at "birth" and these are fixed by physical chem). We accurately recheck half lives all the time , and we know the amt of a traget radioactive isotope that is NOW in a sample. So all the rest is easily determined (and checked by QA measurements and system standards and multiple runs and 5 point determinations to make sure that really low levels of rad nuclides are determined.
EACH element in the "cookbook" of rad nuclide determination has a slightly diff methods and givens.
The various methods of rad age determination and decay LAW can be empirically determined as well as rigorous mathematics. It depends heavily upon quantum considerations and Fermi-Dirac distribution stats. Pauli exclusion principles apply for the transformation of nuclear structure which are well known and determined.
Sounds like Henry Morris has got you convinced about "The great radionuclide hoax". Quite the contrary, rad nuclide labs (At least the ones I use are quite open and QA sensitive) BUT human nture being what it is, occasionally we make mistakes . and because rad nuclide chemistry LEAVES a TRAIL to follow. These mistakes can be detected and rerun.
To willfully CHEAT C14 samples by
1 fooling the lbs doing the MA work (this happened in the first cases of stegosaurs and Triceratops that yielded ages of 20K years.(The paleontology and stratigraphy of the HELL CREEK samples were determined to be of very old age.(This was done by correlation and the mere fact that only Cretaceous fossils were found there. NO younger fossils, (like a mammoth) were ever found "mixed in" HOWCOME?
2Doctoring the samples with shellac (that hppened in the original samples)
This "logic" thats used by the Creation clowns who actually go out and waste money by collecting samples of fossils and then doctoring them or just submitting them knowing their geological ages(there is always a certain amt of C14 formed in soils but this is NOT C14 that is atmospherically induced by removing neutrons from N14(which is the one we are interested in nd labs try to remove all other interferences.
I suggest that you obtain a copy of the Morris and Whitcomb book The GENESIS FLOOD
and look at pages 357 to 359 where you see the most blatant bullshit about isotope age determination.
It talks about a worldwide flood. (Evidence of which has NEVER been found, let alone published in peer reviewed journals). Morris developed an assumptive equation of what "Should be" the way nucllide decay is determined (According to Creationist logic). He doesnt even use half lives or decay constants. (which are constantly being checked in science)
Morris was a Hydraulics engineer so he used his math knowledge to develop tricks in how to "manufacture fake ages" for fossils and strat samples. He was a sneaky sumbitch. I think that Creation "Science" counts on their fans to be just undereducated enough to accept the "scientistic BS" that is conveyed as facts and evidence.
What gets me overall though.
On one hand you guys state emphatically that radioisotope chemistry doesnt work , yet at the same time you have someone actually work with C14 and K/Ar to show that the ages determined are ACCURATE when you misuse a technique.
1Theres over 45 seprate isotopic dating techniques plus a lot of other techniques like spin resonance, alpha tracking,thermoluminescence (several kinds of thermo) and more classical techniques to cross check the rdioisotope techniques.
2ALL THE DIFFERENT RADIOISOTOPE TECHNIQUES AGREE WITH EACH OTHER
3. There are about 700 labs worldwide that focus on doing radionuclide dating. WOW, we really have a conspiracy going here. TO WhAT PURPOSE is this "conspiracy" being perped??
4.Weve been measuring radioactive clocks for about 70 years . The uranium 238 clock has been determined about 120 years ago and without any changes.
Id suggest you read an old paper by Roger Wiems . Its called "Radiometric Dating-A Christian PErspective" . Roger is a Christian and a geophysicist whose made a practice in debating the Fundamentalists about why they are wrong in believing in a Young Earth (he bases his determinations using radiochemistry).