postcard dating guide - Radiometric dating of the earth
The discrepancies between the rejected and accepted data are arbitrarily attributed to excess or loss of argon.[1] Radiometric Dating Indicates different ages by different methods “Rejected and accepted data”? In other words scientists are saying they themselves will not accept some data from radiometric dating because they believe it to be wrong. You would expect your weight would be the same regardless of the method the device used to quantify your weight.
By “objective, hard science” I mean science that is measurable, repeatable, predictable, consistent and accurate.
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.
On the other hand, would I bet my life on the supposed age of a rock, or fossil based on radiometric dating and the testimony of some Ph D scientists?
No, never; and I dare say neither would those same scientists because they know the limitations of the science.
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.[4] 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.
In fact you may have already noticed a number of dead give aways in the above description of the hard science parameter specifications of aircraft performance above.
Those give aways are words like: Precisely quantifying aircraft performance is all about knowing conditions and circumstances.
Why is there so little confidence in the outcome of radiometric dating that scientist admit that they regularly reject data provided by that means?
All you need to do is compare the methodology of radiometric dating with that of predicting aircraft performance and the answer becomes perfectly obvious.
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.
