Certainly the majority of scientists accept radiometric dating. Most people, even the experts in the field, forget the assumptions on which radiometric dating is based. There are basically two different kinds of radioactive dating methods. One is the Carbon system used for dating fragments of once-living organisms. It furnishes some good evidences that creationists often use. These are the methods that are commonly used on inorganic samples such as rocks, and that often give extremely long ages-millions or billions of years.
The apparent agreement between seemingly independent dating methods is seen as a powerful argument for millions of years. But closer inspection reveals that these methods are not truly independent, and the agreement between them is the result of circular reasoning. Since they also think some organisms lived only during certain periods of Earth history, they conclude that these fossils can be used to date different rock layers. For instance, suppose one particular organism has so far been found only in rocks thought to be between and million years old. In other words, the fossils found in rocks are used to date other rocks. But how does one determine an age for the initial set of rocks? One might assume those ages are obtained either directly or indirectly from radioactive dating techniques.
Did I miss something? When has anyone ever received an absolute conclusion from radiometric dating? Uranium, potassium argon, carbon - all of those methods produce approximate results at best. Do I have to go out and find the info, or can we just agree on this one?
Welcome to the home of The Question Evolution Project. Presenting information demonstrating that there is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution, and presenting evidence for special creation. Piltdown Superman. It has been shown many times that radiometric dating has a passel of difficulties.