This is a thread for Grokmaster, and here is his last post: First, Uranium-Lead radiometric dating is not the same method of dating as Potassium-Argon dating, they rely on different isotopes. Second, I'm not sure what you're saying when you claim "All rocks over 100,000 years old are of volcanic origin = inaccurate". You're saying that what you claimed was inaccurate?
No, it is NOT reliable: http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/Radiometric Dating, and The Age of the Earth.htm It is based ENTIRELY on UNPROVEN SPECULATION.
Old Granite from South Africa, 3.2 million years old. The volcanic equivalent of plutonic granite is rhyolite.
Yeah, that completely non scientific article from a supremely bias pro-creator website apparently made on angelfire circa 1998 is super convincing. That webpage tries to claim the Mt. Kilauea is 200 years old for (*)(*)(*)(*)s sake.
Radiometric dating is pretty accurate when used under the correct conditions. If those conditions aren't met, it can be wildly inaccurate. Carbon dating has been calibrated by usage of dendrochronology. It's pretty accurate until things that died after the 1940s (we changed the C12/C14 ratio then). Some critics point to how inaccurate carbon dating of seashells can be. It's true, but seashells aren't an appropriate material to carbon date (the C12/C14 ratio is different from the C12/C14 ratio of terrestrial plant (and that which feeds on it) life).
We don't just have the earth's rocks, either. We have rocks from the moon and meteorites from Mars and from the solar system at large. I for one don't know in what ways radiometric dating is known to be accurate, as I'm no geologist, but I do trust those in the field to come up with working models and theories based on the facts at hand and the ever-glorious scientific method.
