Among many methods, carbon dating is most commonly used to date fossils.In carbon dating, scientists look at how much carbon is left in the fossil, look at the half-life period, and use that to see when it was from.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.Two major dating methods applied to artifacts and fossils are stratagraphic dating (based upon the particular layer of rock of sediment in which the object is found) or radiometric dating (which is based on the decay rates of certain radioactive…A method could only be called artificial if a plant is created in a process which is not simple natural reproduction.No current technology is capable of this, and as such, there are no artificial methods to propagate plants. The first is relative dating which examines the layers of rock around the fossil to find an approximate date.
So when the two contradict – as they do with the age of the universe and the earth – many abandon the faith and reject the Genesis account because current science tells them that the universe and the earth is billions of years old, and disregard the biblical account – which indicates an age of about 6,000 years.
So aircraft designers and pilots can predict, given a certain set of circumstances precisely how much runway a plane will need to take off , and land; how much fuel will be burned, etc. Given the same conditions, the aircraft doesn’t need 2,000 feet of runway to take off one day, and 500 feet to take off the next day, and 3,000 feet another day.
As a licensed pilot and certified flight instructor, I’ve bet my life, and the life of my students and passengers that I know exactly how a given plane will perform under given circumstances: how much runway it will take to take off, fly a specified distance and land at another airport. What inputs it takes to recover from a stall (that’s not a reference to the engine by the way) and spins. Anyone who has flown in a plane is betting the science of flight is a “hard science” with consistent predictable results.
We know the age of those rocks because humans were there to observe the formation. Why this cavalier attitude toward the inaccuracy of all radiometric dating methods?
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.If that is the case, it is indicative of a serious problem with the techniques you are using to get the weight.