Isochron radiometric dating new thread

AFAIK the only assumption necessary for radiometric dating is that decay rates have remained constant over the eons. Do you know of any scientist that has tested that assumption except Creationists?

Doing so should give an age of absolute zero,since the minimum detection level is many millions of years for most methods.

The specific samples above were gathered and sent in for dating by Steve Austin (The only reason anybody knows,otherwise they would have ignored the data and called it whatever date they already assumed).creationwiki.org/Consistency_of_radiometric_dating_comes_from_selective_reporting - 28k -Note that were talking about testing the assumptions of radiometric dating and not the dates geologists agree on. Hi assist24, The specific samples above were gathered and sent in for dating by Steve Austin (The only reason anybody knows,otherwise they would have ignored the data and called it whatever date they already assumed).creationwiki.org/Consistency_of_radiometric_dating_comes_from_selective_reporting - 28k -Thanks, but ???

Mapping suggests that a composite volcanic edifice was created by numerous flows and cinder-cone fragments that intermittently filled the canyon.

We should start another thread called "Is radiometric dating a theory test" because they religiously guard it from falsification as well.

Many experiments have been conducted to test the assumptions of radiometric dating and every single time it has failed.

When projected onto a longitudinal river profile, these data show the original extent of now-dissected intracanyon flows and aid in correlation of flow remnants.

Systematic variations in the elevation of flow bottoms across the Uinkaret fault block can be used to infer the geometry of a hanging-wall anticline that formed adjacent to the listric Toroweap fault.

It's a rebuttal to Talk Origins by John Woodmorappe.

You must have an account to comment. Please register or login here!