Jayjay

Creationists doubt the radioactive dating methods when applied to the age of the Earth because the decay rates might have been different in the past. Riiight, but let's work with that. I have a vague recollection that this argument doesn't hold water partly because we have multiple "chains" of decay (sorry, I don't know the scientific terminology), based on fundamentally different physical laws (alpha and beta decay, perhaps?). If laws of physics were different, then different methods should be giving us different ages, barring that the physical constants weren't deliberately tweaked to give a false age of 4.55 Gy. Is this correct? Talk.Origins' Age of the Earth FAQ was silent on the issue, and I'd like a confirmation one way or the other.

SULPHUR

For as long as it has been measured there has been no evidece of major positive or negative decay rates.Just ask for proof there has been. It can't be done

Jayjay

Yes, but that's a completely different point.

SULPHUR

I assume you now how K-Ar dating works. I t has been found even with remelting of the crystal that the post K-Ar ratio remains the same. individual discrepencies occur especially with diamonds which may give readings older than the agreed age of the earth.There are conditions where K-ar dating cannot be used but there are other methods.

Jayjay

I must have been a bit incoherent in my opening post, apologies for that. I am not asking for a list of possible explanations for potential discrepancies in age, but rather, asking what would happen if creationists were right and fundamental physical constants had been different at some time in the past, hence messing the radioactive decay rates. If all our dating methods were based on one type of decay, then changing laws of physics (let's handwave the side effects like all matter becoming unstable and such) might conceivably make us think that the earth is older or younger than it really is. However, if we have several methods based on different fundamental laws, then we would end up getting different measurements with different methods, yet each method itself would be internally consistent.

Now, the question is: am I correct in claiming that we do have different methods of radioactive dating (for age of the Earth) that are based on different fundamental physical laws? I seem to recall that beta and alpha decay are based on different physical constants... if our hypothetical deity turns one knob, it will effect these decay rates differently.

If I'm correct, I'd like to have an example of two methods that are based on different kinds of decay. Or if I'm wrong or simply not making any sense at all, just shoot my ramblings down without mercy...

SULPHUR

C14to C12
K to Ar
are the more common methods because of the accuracy
There is plenty of information on the NET

Jayjay

C14 isn't relevant when it comes to the age of the Earth, is it?

SULPHUR

or else a little learning is a dangerous thing

SULPHUR

Ur to Pb

SULPHUR

XetoXe