Radiometric dating human history
They know that radiometric dating is not, and in fact cannot be the precise science they want you to believe it is.
Consider: In conventional interpretation of K-Ar (Potassium-Argon) age it is common to discard ages which are substantially too high or too low compared with the rest of the group or with other available data such as the geological time scale.
That there are different methods of determining weight is irrelevant to the fact that your weight is a single number, not a different number based on the method used.
So if you in fact weigh 175 lbs, you would not expect one method to give you 50 lbs, another to give 250 and yet another to give you 388 lbs.
Radiometric dating regularly gives different ages for the same object based on the method used.
For example check the variance in ages from samples tested by two different methods.
For instance I would could consider the physics of flight a “hard science.” Here’s how those terms apply to the performance of an aircraft: Measurable: Flight parameters such as take off and landing distance, fuel burn, etc. Repeatable: Given the same initial conditions, those parameters should be the same regardless of who performs the operations.But when dated by the K-Ar method, did they get an age of a few years old? The K-Ar method showed the age of the newly formed rocks as between 0.35 and 2.8 million years old. Clearly incorrect. Simply because they have a story to protect, namely that “the earth is billions of years old.” Because if the true age of the earth and universe were determined, the secular religious stories of evolution and the Big Bang would be demolished, having been clearly demonstrated to be false.The Radiometric Dating Method Once again let me point out that scientists regularly reject data from radiometric “dating” results.The evidence many find persuasive: radiometric dating.But is radiometric dating really the objective hard science many believe it to be?