For this purpose, isochron dating was developed, a process "that solves both of these problems (accurate date, assumptions) at once" (Stasson 1992). 2) The process must occur at a relatively uniform rate.It has been established through extensive experimentation that radioactive decay occurs at a constant rate. In this case, the initial condition is the amount of daughter isotope in the rock when it was formed.Familiar to us as the black substance in charred wood, as diamonds, and the graphite in “lead” pencils, carbon comes in several forms, or isotopes.One rare form has atoms that are 14 times as heavy as hydrogen atoms: carbon-14, or C ratio gets smaller.This amount is often unknown and is one of the downfalls of conventional radiometric dating.However, isochron dating bypasses this assumption, as explained below. The final condition is the number of atoms of parent and daughter isotopes remaining in the rock and can easily be measured in a lab.Clearly, such huge time periods cannot be fitted into the Bible without compromising what the Bible says about the goodness of God and the origin of sin, death and suffering—the reason Jesus came into the world (See Six Days? He said, This only makes sense with a time-line beginning with the creation week thousands of years ago.It makes no sense at all if man appeared at the end of billions of years.
A submethod within biostratigraphy is faunal association: Sometimes researchers can determine a rough age for a fossil based on established ages of other fauna from the same layer — especially microfauna, which evolve faster, creating shorter spans in the fossil record for each species.So, we have a “clock” which starts ticking the moment something dies.Obviously, this works only for things which were once living.However, rather than dealing with this issue and critically evaluating Austin's other procedures (including the unacceptable mineral and glass impurities in his 'fractions'), YECs loudly proclaim that the results are discrepant with the 1986 AD eruption. Considering that the dacite probably erupted in 1986 AD, Austin should have known that at least some of the samples would have given dates that were younger than 2 million years old and that Geochron Laboratories could not have provided reliable answers.