Radiometric dating shows an ancient earth but Young Earth Creationists want to believe that is isn't reliable. Just guess. Well answer me this: [Spirituality & Religion]

@Budwick

That would indeed be a leap. But that's not what i said.

I'll try to be a little more explicit for your benefit:

The point being made here is that if radiometric dating is considered a dependable means to date mineral deposits allowing big oil companies to reliably find oil then it is reliable enough as a method to accurately date the age of the earth as well.

All good?

@Pikachu [quote] if radiometric dating is considered a dependable means to date mineral deposits [/quote]

And, I understand that it's maybe not all you crack it up to be.
In other words, you are only a self proclaimed authority on the matter.

How did you measure the amount of Carbon 14 at the time the deposit was formed.
You would have to know that to determine how it aged.

@Budwick

[quote] I understand that it's maybe not all you crack it up to be.[/quote]

Were that true then oil companies wouldn't be using it🤷‍♀️

[quote]You would have to know that to determine how it aged.
[/quote]

Partially correct.
You don't have to know how much carbon was in any particular material but in order to use the method it was necessary to test the reliability of half life measurements against known ages.
Which of course they did and after that it's just down to the laws of physics.

Now i would like to clarify something for you because it's a mistake we see a lot from YEC.
Carbon 14 dating is only good for dating things up to about 50,000 years. And stuff older than a couple centuries, i don't have those numbers in my head.
That's why there are a number of radioactive isotopes that we use in radiometric dating and here's the kicker: they keep corroborating each other.

@Pikachu So, the short answer is - you don't know.

@Budwick

Um....no bud. I think you're being [i]deliberately [/i]obtuse.
Short answer: numerous, independent dating methods combined with known ages arrive at the same dates thus validating radiometric dating.

I notice you don't seem eager to address why oil companies keep successfully using a method if it's not reliable.

I'll wait while you pick your mic back up....

@Pikachu Correct me if I'm wrong, but if oil companies are dating minerals, even given the problem with the age of the samples (around 50,000 years with some exceptions; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating#:~:text=C%20(the%20period%20of%20time,analysis%20of%20older%20samples%20possible.) there would be no carbon, radioactive or not, present. You can't radiocarbon date a rock.

@Bushranger

Yes if it's older than 50,000 years, carbon is not a reliable dating system.
Luckily there are many other radioactive isotopes used in radiometric dating.

@Pikachu Don't know why some people only seem to know about carbon dating. Shame they don't educate themselves.

@Bushranger Well that's what happens when you only expose yourself to creationist propaganda

@Pikachu It is entertaining, but disturbing, to read.

@Pikachu [quote]it's a mistake we see a lot from YEC.[/quote]

@Bushranger [quote]Don't know why some people only seem to know about carbon dating[/quote]

It's because they're being disingenuous. They do the same with the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. They can't refute the genuine theory so they produce their own, deliberately flawed, version and falsely present it as the genuine theory. They then proceed to rip it apart by pointing out all the flaws.

We know C-14 dating is no good for dating things more than a few tens of thousand years old, so scientists use other radio-isotopes instead. Often they use more than one method in order to corroborate the results. It suits the YECs purpose to falsely claim that scientists use inappropriate methods because, they can then argue that the results are invalid.

@Sharon I think it Kent Hovind in one of his videos, who held up a piece of fossilised bone and claimed that it couldn't be radiocarbon dated. So if they couldn't radiocarbon date a bone, then it's obviously faulty. I know I don't have to point out the glaring faults in this, but I think it goes to your point. The gurus of YEC make these disingenuous comments, but their acolytes accept the comments without question.

Prior to the early 90s, this attitude could be understood. But, with our current access to the internet, it is unconscionable. We have ready access to more knowledge than at any time in our history and people are still unwilling to seek the facts.