Ok, let’s take a look at what I actually put down:
First, let’s look at what I posted as my first thread, k, luv?
Radiometric Dating - A Brief Explanation: a pretty thorough explanation, for 200+ words, about how radiometric Dating works.
Radiometric Dating - The Assumptions:
1. The rate of decay remains constant. 2. There has been no contamination (that is, no daughter or
intermediate elements have been introduced or leeched from the specimen of rock). 3. We can determine how much daughter there was to begin with (if
we assume there was no daughter to begin with, yet there was daughter at the formation of the rock, the rock would have a superficial appearance of
How old is the Earth? About 4.5 billion years based on radio active dating using uranium and thorium isotopes. It could be a little bit older
if it formed as a liquid mass, since this state resets nuclear isotope clocks which only date from the onset of a solid phase. The oldest meteorites
are about 4.8 billion years old so that is probably the upper limit for the Earth too.
Without leaving this one minor site, we get the problem with Uranium dating:
"When uranium decays to lead, a by-product of this process is the formation of helium, a very light, inert gas which readily escapes from
rock. Certain crystals called zircons, obtained from drilling into very deep granites, contain uranium which has partly decayed into lead. By
measuring the amount of uranium and 'radiogenic lead' in these crystals, one can calculate that, if the decay rate has been constant, about 1.5
billion years must have passed. (This is consistent with the geologic 'age' assigned to the granites in which these zircons are found.) There is a
significant amount of helium from that '1.5 billion years of decay' still inside the zircons. This is at first glance surprising, because of the
ease with which one would expect helium (with its tiny, light, unreactive atoms) to escape from the spaces within the crystal structure. There should
hardly be any left, because with such a slow buildup, it should be seeping out continually and not accumulating. Drawing any conclusions from the
above depends, of course, on actually measuring the rate at which helium leaks out of zircons. This is what one of the recent RATE  papers reports
on. The samples were sent… to a world-class expert to measure these rates. The consistent answer: the helium does indeed seep out quickly over a wide
range of temperatures. In fact, the results show that because of all the helium still in the zircons, these crystals (and since this is Precambrian
basement granite, by implication the whole earth) could not be older than between 4,000 and 14,000 years. In other words, in only a few thousand
years, 1.5 billion years' worth (at today's rates) of radioactive decay has taken place. Interestingly, the data has since been refined and updated
to give a date of 5680 (+/- 2000) years." 
Someone else with the same problem with Uranium:
TAS WALKER, B.Sc.(Hons) [geology], B.Eng.(Hons), Ph.D., worked in power station design and
operation, and the geological assessment of coal deposits. He works full-time researching and speaking for Answers in Genesis in Australia.
And this was the article based off his work, written by him:
One of the products associated with uranium decay is a particular isotope of helium. The best measurements made to date reveal
that there is not enough of this type of helium in the atmosphere to support alleged decay of uranium for more than 6000 years.
Other methods, for example, uranium-lead and thorium-lead ages, have been found to result in contradictory evidence. A classic example is that
the dust samples on the surface of the moon seem to be older than the rocks underneath (CRSQ , 1971, 8:3, p.203).
Now, this one, written by: Wayne Jackson, M.A. OUR EARTH—YOUNG OR OLD?
, quoted Frederic B. Jueneman (1982, p. 21). (this is paraphrased, go
read the article for exact words: Based on Uranium and thorium, we have the age of the earth set at 4.5 billion years, but that confirmation may be
presumptuous because recent years have proved the radiodecay to be less contant than first appeared, as they are not immune to environmental
influences. It could mean that the atomic clock reset after a global disaster—to the point where it’s in the age of man; i.e., The flood without
admitting to it!
The Creationists are the most troubling of these factions. They have published many pages that purport to show evidence that the Earth is
young. They require from a literal reading of the Bible according to THEIR way of reading it, that the Earth must be less than 10,000 years old. To
make this work, they have to claim that radioactive dating is a fraud, and leads to conflicting results. They have expertly collected a variety of
discordant age estimates, or references to conflicting results in the literature, but when you look closely you will find that their references are
either 50-100 years out of date, or they have completely misrepresented the scientific evidence.
The Zircon thing, is a new reference, and instead of LISTENING TO SOMEONE TELLING YOU THAT SOMEBODY IS LYING, YOU LOOK UP THE NUMBERS FOR YOURSELF!
And notice that I threw in one token Evolutionist to point out that HE has doubts about the age of the EARTH based upon FACTS—evolutionists don’t
usually like creationists to win! For as much as people like to hate on GOVERNMENT today, they sure do trust NASA a lot!
The consistency: let’s assume that all of the different types of dating systems are lined up, that they fit each other pretty well…like we assume
that when this poor little earth was formed, there was no lead…and that the rates of decay are consistent THROUGHOUT TIME. That’s how you get 4.5
billion years, luv. All they did was bash, NOT show exactly WHERE these thing were wrong with the creationistic view points. I love how there’s a
lack of actual cite for cite refutation—but more of a “they’re wrong, because BIG BROTHER SAID SO.” This so smacks of uneducated propaganda, it’s a
wonder you posted it at all…