Christians/ atheists and fence dwellers, why do some people rely on radiodating methods to say the earth is old?

i dont understand why christians even attempt asking scientific questions. they should stick to their nonsense and nothing else

Moose, it is apparent that you REALLY do not know much about science, probably because you go to creationist web sites for your information.

You REALLY need to try to learn something from valid scientific sources.

Your understanding of radioactivity is nil. This site provides some basic information about radioactivity. I think some of the short explanations of aspects of radioactivity will help you.

http://pages.geo.wvu.edu/~kammer/g231/RadDatingNot...

For example, here is one.

"Half-Life: the amount of time for half the atoms of a radioactive element to decay. Doesn’t matter how many atoms started, half will decay."

That means that half of the atoms of the radioactive element will decay to another element during the period of the half life. If there are one million radioactive atoms and the half life is 10,000 years, that means after 10,000 years 500,000 of the original atoms will have decayed into the other element, leaving 500,000 of the original atoms. In the next 10,000 years one half of the original atoms, or 250,000 atoms will have decayed, leaving 250,000 of the original atoms. And it keeps going on like that.

See also this link for more information about dating.

https://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/parks/gtime/radiom.htm...

I just notice that you have already selected BA while I was working on my answer. I hope you check back.

Read that

"there is only one clock from which ALL other clocks are set"

Really? Well this is indeed news,

You have been smoking crack.

Given a known rate of radioactive decay of specific carbon isotopes, this can be used to measure the age of objects.

The passage of time, measured as a multiple of years (the earth's rotation around the sun) is the standard measure of age as used by geologists, kids having a birthday and everyone else. Do you have an alternative that you think would better?

Apples and oranges appear irrelevant. Perhaps you mention them because you do not not fully understand the reliability of carbon dating. Perhaps you have been misled by those with a agenda other than objective truth.

This is moronic, I'm not going to attempt to say I know anything about carbon dating or radio dating, but I'm pretty sure you don't either. It takes many years of study I'm sure.

Radioactive decay is caused by the constant jiggling of protons and neutrons which are in turn caused by random virtual particles popping into and out of existence from a quantum phenomena known as the Casimir Effect that was proven in 2001.

This rate of decay is a constant when measured in large quantities and can be used to date objects through deep time by comparing how much of the original isotope has decayed into a daughter isotope.

For age of the Earth, dating is done by measuring uranium-lead decay in the mineral zircon which is abundant in many types of rocks. The Acasta Gneiss rock formation in the Canadian Shield has been dated to 4.3 billion years old which means that the Earth had formed its outer crust by at least that age. The Apollo mission to the moon brought back rocks that were 4.56 billion years old. So in other words, the Earth's youngest age is 4.56 billion years old. It cannot be any younger than that.

We know that there is no way to greatly affect the rate of decay for radioactive isotopes. We have tested them against extreme heat, cold, combustion, corrosion, abrasion, disintegration and pressurization. Lastly, we have also tested them against time. In 1987, a supernova approximately 170,000 light years away released a tremendous amount of data recorded on film and graph and so far since its explosion, its decay rates correspond to the decay rates as they are today. Thus, we know that decay rates were the same 170,000 years ago.

In 2006, a supernova 400 million light years away burst open on film and graph and its isotope decay rates also corresponds to decay rates as they were 170,000 years ago as well as today's rates which means that radiometric decay rates have been the same 400 million years ago as well.

Are you saying radiometrics are invalid because Earth is in orbit? Do I misunderstand you?