Uranium

... is that there is no way to tell if a rock did not have argon (or lead) in it from the beginning of it's formation. Because a rock has lead 206 and uranium 238 in it does not prove the lead is a daughter. It only proves it is there. It also has many other minerals in it. C-14 in "Ancient Rocks" ...

See entire post

... Disclaimer: If you don't have a problem with why C-14 would be in rocks that are "dated," by potassium argon and uranium lead at hundreds of millions of years old..then the first primate is set at 56 million years and the first homo sapien at 500,000 to 1million ...

See entire post

ok, but what if the uranium somehow gets messed up? Well, how could this occur? It would take extreme pressures and high temps for this to happen, in which case your sample such as an arrow head would not be an arrow head any longer ...

See entire post

... I get so far, its more accurate than relative dating. its used over relative dating more often than not. you use "parent isotopes" like uranium? ok, but what if the uranium somehow gets messed up? how will we know? how can we really know if its accurate at all? its not like we have a ...

See entire post

Who is "they"?? And how does what "they" say make it a simple way of knowing that?? Sounds like that is how you define all your beliefs... by what "they" say. Do some critical thinking young man. The Answers in Genesis website, dude, the very group who wrote the articl...

See entire post