Here are links to the previous installments in the series: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7.
This article discusses some heavy metal stuff. That is, isotopes of lead. It is supposed to be reliable if scientists include some interesting data juggling. But like the other methods, this one also goes over like a lead balloon. If uniformitarian geologists would play the cards they're dealt, they'd see that the earth was created, and it was created much more recently than they want to believe. Sorry, Papa Darwin, no time for evolution to happen.
This final article of the series examines the common-lead method of radioactive dating, sometimes referred to as the Pb-Pb method. This method reaches the pinnacle of radioisotope dating methods in terms of complication and convolution. Since we do not want to be tossed to and fro by every teaching that cunning men put in front of us, let’s carefully investigate this method’s viability as a reliable clock for terrestrial and extraterrestrial rock formations.You can read the rest of the article by clicking on "Heavy Metal Clocks, Pb-Pb Dating Model: Radioactive Dating, Part 8".
Our investigation begins with the three “so called” isochron equations listed in a previous Acts & Facts article that are the foundation for the U-Pb and Th-Pb dating methods. Straightforward application of these equations generally yields discordant results; i.e., the dates obtained disagree by more than the stated measurement errors allow. In fact, Gunter Faure states that this must be taken as evidence that one or more of the dating method assumptions are not satisfied—essentially nullifying the method.