Second, it is impossible to tell, from the isotope information alone, when the dates are right and when they are wrong. Take advantage of this free information but please support CMI as God provides. As far as better dating methods, we need a better way to counter the question, "Do you have a better method? Like a hunter shooting at a target beyond the range of his rifle, the fact he does not have a more powerful gun, does not mean he is wise to continue shooting uselessly at far distant targets which he cannot hit.
When I presented this and similar criticisms of isotope dating to a gathering of the Lucas Heights Scientific Society (Sydney, Australia) in 1989, the only response that came from the chief of the division responsible for isotope dating at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization was the question, ‘Do you have a better dating method? After reading the 2008 CMI article referenced in the response to my second message, I have to say that I am even more confident that not only is it not impossible to determine the approximate age of the creation of granite basement rock by measuring in the present (given the right method, i.e.
I would like to see the famous zircons from west Australia and other locations around the world be subjected to the clearly superior helium diffusion dating method. I have great respect for your work in creation science and have learned much from it. I am aware of the assumptions that go into radiometric dating methods, and how those assumptions invalidate radio-dating as valid science, inasmuch as it claims to accurately date rocks when it clearly does not, given it is based on those unproved assumptions.
For teaching and sharing purposes, readers are advised to supplement these historic articles with more up-to-date ones suggested in the Related Articles and Further Reading below. One crystal showed a U/U date of 4.3 billion years, and the authors therefore claimed it to be the oldest rock crystal yet discovered.
It would only need to be that hot for a puny fraction, say one thousandth, of the 4.5 billion years in the evolutionary model for nearly all the helium to diffuse out of the zircons.
TL; DR: the only reason his answer is "No" is because he was asked about ten years before RATE had published anything.
An unbiased observer would be forced to admit that this contradiction prevents any conclusion as to the age of the crystal. This clearly shows two fundamental flaws in long-age isotope dating.
But these authors reached their conclusion by ignoring the contradictory data! First, the dates are readily discarded if they do not fit the preconceived notions of the experimenter.