How about showing how radiometric methods are very flawed? Not all methods for λ Lambda use a Geiger counter.
The flaws in radiometric dating are beyond belief! Here's just a taste...
Excerpt...
"As someone who has studied radioactivity in detail, I have always been a bit amused by the assertion that radioactive dating is a precise way to determine the age of an object. This false notion is often promoted when radioactive dates are listed with utterly unrealistic error bars.
In this report, for example, we are told that using one radioactive dating technique, a lunar rock sample is 4,283 million years old, plus or minus 23 million years old. In other words, there is a 95% certainty that the age is somewhere between 4,283 + 23 million years and 4,283 – 23 million years. That’s just over half a percent error in something that is supposedly multiple billions of years old.
Of course, that error estimate is complete nonsense. It refers to one specific source of error – the uncertainty in the measurement of the amounts of various atoms used in the analysis. Most likely, that is the least important source of error. If those rocks really have been sitting around on the moon for billions of years, I suspect that the the wide range of physical and chemical processes which occurred over that time period had a much more profound effect on the uncertainty of the age determination. This is best illustrated by the
radioactive age of a sample of diamonds from Zaire. Their age was measured to be 6.0 +/- 0.3 billion years old. Do you see the problem? Those who are committed to an ancient age for the earth currently believe that it is 4.6 billion years old. Obviously, then, the
minimum error in that measurement is 1.4 billion years, not 0.3 billion years!"
Absurd consistency of uranium isotope ratio IF formed in space: Consider this from Walt Brown's
Origin of Earth's Radioactivity chapter:
The isotopes of each chemical element have almost constant ratios with each other. ... Why is the ratio of 235U to 238U in uranium ore deposits so constant almost everywhere on Earth? One very precise
study showed that the ratio is 0.0072842, with a standard deviation of only 0.000017. [There's less than one U235 atom, with its 700M year half-life, for every hundred U238s, with their 4.5B year half-lives.] Obviously, the more time that elapses between the formation of the various isotopes (such as 235U and 238U) and the farther they are transported to their current resting places,
the more varied those ratios should be. The belief that these isotopes formed in a supernova explosion millions of light-years away and billions of years before the Earth formed and
somehow collected in small ore bodies in a fixed ratio is absurd. Powerful explosions would have separated the lighter isotopes from the heavier isotopes.
Some radioisotopes simultaneously produce two or more daughters. When that happens, the daughters have very precise ratios to each other, called branching ratios or branching fractions. Uranium isotopes are an example, because they are daughter products of some even heavier element. Recall that the Proton-21 Laboratory has produced superheavy elements that instantly decayed. Also, the global flux of neutrons during the flood provided nuclei with enough neutrons to reach their maximum stability. Therefore, isotope ratios for a given element are fixed. Had the flux of neutrons originated in outer space, we would not see these constant ratios worldwide. Because these neutrons originated at many specific points in the globe-encircling crust, these fixed ratios are global.