Rubidium 87 radiometric dating being just friends after dating
They covered “expected” ages ranging from 1 to 600 million years.In almost every case of a discrepancy, the fossil dates were accepted as correct. Woodmorappe quoted one researcher as saying: In general, dates in the ‘correct ball park’ are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are discrepancies fully explained.2 When these reports did discuss the possible causes of errors, they used words such as “possibly,” “perhaps,” “probably,” “may have been,” etc.
For K-Ar dates, it’s easy to blame argon loss if the reported age is too short, or argon absorption if it’s too long.
Certainly the majority of scientists accept radiometric dating.
And yet, there is really no scientific reason proving that radiometric dating is correct, and a number of evidences showing that it doesn’t work. We’ll find that faith in materialism, and rejection of any supernatural activity, is the foundation stone of radiometric analysis, even before any measurements are made.
” The only answer to that question is that “good” samples give dates that are in accord with evolutionary presuppositions.
“Bad” samples are the ones that give dates not in conformity with evolutions classic illustration of circular reasoning.5 Grand Canyon Dating Creationists have criticized many aspects of dating rocks by radioactivity, but have offered little real proof that the method is flawed.
Most radiometric arguments were said to favor the 2.6 MY date, but the paleontological arguments favored the 1.8 MY date-(that is where the skull would best fit evolutionary theory).