(August 10, 2011 at 2:15 pm)Godschild Wrote:(August 9, 2011 at 4:36 pm)I_Blaspheme Wrote:(August 9, 2011 at 3:12 pm)Godschild Wrote: I see our 50,000 years are in agreement, beyond that no dating is reliable.
Wrong.
Uranium-lead
Samarium-neodymium
Potassium-argon
Rubidium-strontium
Uranium-thorium
Argon-argon
Iodine-xenon
Lanthanum-barium
Lead-lead
Lutetium-hafnium
Neon-neon
Rhenium-osmium
Uranium-lead-helium
Uranium-uranium
Chlorine-36
Isochron dating method
Fission track dating method
Luminescence dating methods
You have no material with an actual known age to verify those test past 50,000 years.
Does it mean nothing to you that the various dating methods agree with one another? Does it mean nothing that radioactive decay occurs at a known fixed rate, and that this can be used to determine the age that rocks formed? Does it mean nothing that these methods have been tested, verified, and accepted as reliable by the scientific community? Does it mean nothing that the laboratories that perform these tests determine the error range for each test performed?
Of course it doesn't - at least not to the feeble-minded.
I seriously doubt you have any understanding whatsoever of how these methods even work, or you would not make such ignorant statements.
Enjoy your ignorance. It seems to suit you.