Radio active dating
Radio active dating - sammul chan and ruby lin dating
At their request, physicist Dr Jim Mason, of CMI Canada, reviewed the material from the meeting and his response was published on 2 April 2015 (see Response to Geochronology: Understanding the Uncertainties, a presentation by Dr Justin Payne).
Kevin Rogers submitted a comment to that article (reproduced below, edited to focus on substantive issues), to which Dr Jim Mason replies.Radioactive Dating Methods I am Kevin Rogers and am the director of Reasonable Faith Adelaide.Last year we held a number of meetings on the young/old earth issue and gave YECs numerous opportunities to speak.Andrew Kulikovsky spoke on one occasion and John Hartnett spoke on 2 occasions. About half those who are on the committee are YECs and the others doubt the YEC position to various degrees.Jim raised some interesting points but I don’t believe that he addressed the central points that Justin raised.Jim stated that “uranium is preferentially encased in these [zircon] crystals while lead is preferentially excluded” but did not fully explain the significance of this.
It can be experimentally confirmed that molten Zircon rejects lead.This is highly significant, as it means that the initial conditions are known to a high level of confidence.The other point that Justin made was that the dating for Uranium/Lead can be derived from 3 sources: U238 decay, U235 decay and the lead isotope ratio.These 3 methods can be checked against each other, especially using the Concordia line/diagram.Jim Mason made no reference to the Concordia line and I could not find any reference to the Concordia line on any articles on the CMI website, even though it is well known (e.g. Jim raised the issue of Helium concentrations in Zircon.This is interesting, but it was not discussed at the meeting and I do not know how Justin would respond.