Continuing the discussion from Scientific claims must meet scientific standards:
I’m replying to your post in a separate thread here, because it veers wildly off-topic from the original discussion.
I keep seeing YECs harping on and on and on about isochron discordances and dates that have to be changed. Nobody is denying that this happens. There are circumstances in which dating methods. can give the wrong result. This is widely acknowledged in the scientific literature. In fact, when discordances are encountered, they generally are published because scientists want to study these discordances, to try and determine why they are discordant so that they can improve the accuracy of their results in the future, explore the limitations of the effectiveness of radiometric dating, and identify warning signs that can indicate when the resultant dates are likely to be in error.
However, you must view these discordances in context. The number of such discordances is tiny compared to the corpus of dating results. There may be a couple of hundred or so such discordances, but you need to bear in mind that the scientific literature contains hundreds of thousands of dates where there is no discordance.
Hundreds. Of. Thousands.
Now here’s another fact about radiometric dating that you may not realise: it is expensive. A single point on an isochron plot can cost five hundred dollars or more. Isochron plots typically require four or more points to establish accuracy. The use of multiple dating methods pushes the cost of dating a single sample into the high thousands. This means that scientists have a huge economic incentive to make sure that their dating methods are reliable. This also means that claims that cherry-picking the results, or systematic bias in the peer review method, could account for the concordance that we see, are totally unrealistic.
Here’s another fact: the largest motivation behind radiometric dating these days is not to prove evolution, but to find oil. In order to do so, scientists must be able to determine not only the ages of rock strata but their thermal history as well. Too young, or too cool, and oil companies will waste a fortune drilling only to find a useless slush of leaves. Too old, or too hot, and they will waste a fortune drilling only to find that all the hydrocarbons have been cooked into oblivion. Take a read of the blog post, “Can Young-Earth Creationists Find Oil?” on the Age of Rocks blog – it explains it in considerable detail. I’ve tried googling for a YEC rebuttal to this article but I’ve drawn a blank.
Again, getting the results of radiometric dating wrong is expensive.
The bottom line: geologists have a lot of incentives to make sure that radiometric dating is reliable. And the motivations for old-earth dating are primarily economic, not ideological.