What assumptions are used in Radiometric Dating?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee2/datin...

You commented on an answer that I gave about sin. And your comment was that we did not inherit Adam's sin, just his sinful nature. Adam is no more real than Harry Potter.

Firstly, Adam and Eve is a myth. Ancient one stolen by the tribe of Israel when they were captives of Sumar. You'll find it in the myth they had called the Huluppu Tree. Google it, and read it. As well, there was no flood either. Noah was no 600 year old man. But the myth again stolen. You'll find it a copy job, right down to the dove, on Tablet 11 of the Epic of Gilgamesh, as well Sumar in origin. Google that one too.

You know so little. Didn't you ever wonder where these stories/legends all came from? No? Just swallow all this stuff with no questions? You thus are a sheeple

Grad courses in rel. studies, U of Chicago, Divinity School

Real scientists don't "Assume" anything. They develop a theory, test it, provide their evidence to others, and then either move on or explore further.

If you are questioning the accuracy of it, fine - but the theories behind it are all valid, and well tested. Good luck with that.

PS - saying "I don't think it's accurate" is not, in itself, evidence that it's incorrect. Just that you don't know much about it.

You said: "The responses demonstrate that those that believe Radiometric Dating is accurate, don't really care whether the assumptions used are correct or not. "

Incorrect. You continue to state they are using 'assumptions'. I'd love it if your "facts" came from a scientific journal somewhere, and not some Creationist site. Too bad you continue to argue Lies. Isn't that a "Sin"?

I assume that since you are asking this question here, rather than in the science section, you are looking into the Young Earth Creation story and how this method can be proven/disproven.

For Radiometric Dating, they use the known decay rates of certain isotopes from unstable to stable and from there, determine how old the object is.

For YEC, everything was created perfect (ie, no radioactive decay) until man was cast out of the garden. Things started to go downhill from there.

The main assumption is that the laws of physics which determine radioactive half-lives hasn't changed at any time in the past.

If you overturn this, if you assume physical constants of the universe can change, then you're making a pretty radical assumption that affects pretty much everything in physics, top to bottom. And it's something for which there is not a shred of evidence. No known mechanism could give rise to such a thing.

There are none. AIG made up everything to fit their paradigm.

iim pretty sure they look for percentages of isotopes.