Science, real science should never rely on sssumptions to conclude something, and make a ‘true’ statement, or call it ‘fact’ when the ‘fact’ is heavily dependent upon faulty assumptions! This kind of thinking would never hold up in the court of law right?
I have no idea what assumptions of which you are speaking that invalidate dating techniques. ALL SCIENCE uses assumptions to start,.
A. Each method of radioisotope dating is bounded by a LOWER AGE LIMIT AND AN UPPER AGE LIMIT and are usable for a specific defined range.(C14 is NEVER used for ancient carbon , if its over 60 K years, AS AN ASSUMPTION OF THE AGE, we would use another method and cross check with other techniques.
B. Decay Constants in the equations (LAMBDA VALUES) are constantly being cross verified and relisted (we're talking about numbers whose accuracy we that now being corrected to the 6th decimal place to the right of the dot
C. Several isotopes undergo "branched decays" wherein their decay constants are a SIGMA value of lambda values from both decay branches.
D Isotopes decay in fixed ratios unique or each element .SO, we use the decay for the parent and DAUGHTER ISOTOPES (As a cross check pf the method),(These methods include U/Pb, Th /Th ,U/Th/Th/He methods. as well s K/Ar Ar/Ar etc. the assumptions for these are cross checked against known age items (like Agometicus granites for U and min aged volcanos for K).
Theres a lot of rading and l;earning to do but as Ive alwys been told
"BEFORE YOURE ABLE TO CRITIQUE THE RULES< YOU BETTER LEARN THE RULES"
Sure if ppl (usually evolutionists) *Assume* only one tree ring per year
Dendrochronology is a very mature tool and before you post actual LIES like your above, you oughta know how its actually done. Dendro guys take multiple samples and resection their samples for "entire season ring sequences". This is news from the 1940's
ARE YOU SURE youre not gungasnake?? He was fond of making up lies about what he said that "Evolosers believed in".
If you dont know what youre talking about at all , dammit, why dont you just shut up??
Ive given A2K Creationists and IDers a perfect scientific argument to try to make points on, (Convergent and divergent evolution , ), yet you try to deny techniques from Physics and chemistry to make your silly points. Are you guys too dumb? or do you just have some talking points handed you by clowns like Ken Ham ?