How accurate is radiometric dating?

I believe so.

Relativity is based on the false principle of 'consistency'.
Whereas there are none.
Everything in physics goes to Gerbil when the QED loses its (Expected) rhythm.

The Ridiculous notion that an 'atoms'' lifespan is precise and UNALTERABLE is Gerbling hysterical.

We alter them, daily!

No measurement is precise.

His reality is as valid as is yours, Amos - You are both viewing from seperate pedestals.
He doesn't want your constant need to perfect his existence. But.... You need validation via numbers (disciples of absolute likemindedness).

Radiometric dating

Geologists use radiometric dating to estimate how long ago rocks formed, and to infer the ages of fossils contained within those rocks.

Radioactive elements decay
The universe is full of naturally occurring radioactive elements. Radioactive atoms are inherently unstable; over time, radioactive "parent atoms" decay into stable "daughter atoms."

When molten rock cools, forming what are called igneous rocks, radioactive atoms are trapped inside. Afterwards, they decay at a predictable rate. By measuring the quantity of unstable atoms left in a rock and comparing it to the quantity of stable daughter atoms in the rock, scientists can estimate the amount of time that has passed since that rock formed.

Dating ash layers to get 'older than/younger than' dates for fossils

Bracketing the fossils
Fossils are generally found in sedimentary rock — not igneous rock. Sedimentary rocks can be dated using radioactive carbon, but because carbon decays relatively quickly, this only works for rocks younger than about 50 thousand years.

So in order to date most older fossils, scientists look for layers of igneous rock or volcanic ash above and below the fossil. Scientists date igneous rock using elements that are slow to decay, such as uranium and potassium. By dating these surrounding layers, they can figure out the youngest and oldest that the fossil might be; this is known as "bracketing" the age of the sedimentary layer in which the fossils occur.

And all that depends on 'predictable' (ABSOGERBLINGLUTE) decay of radioisotopes.

Not a Constant - There are NO constants.

Every nuclear-reactor (Monkey-built) ALTERS Atomic decay - That's what they DO.

It's What Stars do - Mammals CONVERT elements (ENTIRELY) just by breathing.

ALL MEASUREMENTS ARE ASSUMPTIONS.

I prefer to rely on the experts, thanks.

As you must.
namaste

From a scientific point of view (I have a Physics degree), radiometric dating is accurate. We not only understand how the process of decay works, we have also confirmed the results in different ways. We aren't just relying on one process, we are looking at several measurable indicators of age and comparing them.

(By the way, Mark has a rather quirky philosophical view of the world. Take what he says with a grain of salt.)

I would be curious to know what "discrepancies" he is talking about.

Im ageologist whose chemistry background has allowed me to be heavily involved with radiometric dating.
First, we express geological time by events called "Chronozones" where a geological or evolutionry event defines the time period involved, which is a "chron". The chronozones are broken down into ytems , series, and stages of events . The specimens that we date by geo chem and geophysical techniques are used to place a more quantitative time boundary on the specimen. and we see what chron they belong to.
Since concepts like "years" were quite variable through geologic time, all rad dating uses "seconds of decay" as the basis. Then we establish the "years involved" by assigning as if they were in todays duration of a years worth of seconds. Theres a unique decay constnt for every isotope (radioactive). This is being refreshed and calculated finer and finer as our ability to deal with activity levels in the 10"s of millions of AVERAGE decays per second .(Its like differential equations)

So we masure and record the number of decays per second and compute the time based on the ecay constant and "hlf life" of each isotope.
So we compute the age in seconds and convert that to our yers, and this is based on where a fossil or qash or zircon fits within a chronozone. This we age date the chronozone.
Now we also cross check by numerous means using thermal, gravity, mss denisty, hyaline alpha tracking(Used on volcanic glasses like obsidian)," Cosmo" exposure;optical stimulated luminescence, Flourine ion dqting,electron spin resonance, (As well as a whole bunch of other high sounding tricks. We also use old fashioned stratigrphy qnd bio tricks.

The error involved, (depending on the care and QA used in the sample prpep, collwction and analyses) is usually less thn 1% of the count data. This results ina typcally really small error in time (from which you see the "Honest to Joe swing "guess" ) . I usually use a 0.001% tot error if my lab records multiple overlap by running at last 5 duplicates and several field and method blanks.

As Ed said,
1.Creationists have been trying to collect and send in fraud samples to make it seem that old samples are incorrectly datd as young---Like the dinosaur C14/C13 dating which in each case the samples had been doctored by watered down shellac(something like a quarter pound cut, which the lab can be fooled in its washing and cleanup sequences>

2. And to make"young samples" (like ash from a 2 year old volcano) report out as OLD.
Sometimes using a technique erroneously lads to errors and when we know of it we find out that its usually a "Creation SCienc" posse thats trying to be clever. In ALL cases so far, science has ferreted out the fraud and made the Creation"Scientists" look kinda dumb

I knew of a sample of young volcanic ash and zircon that used several methods that had a "young age limit" which meant that, say for K40/Ar39-A40, we dont use this method for anything younger than , say 100 K years.
I was once asked how would I scientifically age date a volcano that erupted two years ago. My answer was that Id go find a newspaper that reported the eruption and see what date was on it.
The creationists try to get away with stupid science qnd then they want kids(and us) to believe theyve got some Biblical based "truth" in their pockets.

Farmerman has shown that he knows what is talking about and has specialized knowledge and experience.

I trust him on this topic more than I trust myself. Listen to him.

Even more than Mark Noble?

ya see , we save Mark for the really hard stuff, like why do we put anchovies in ceaser salad

You have a certificate verifying you followed 'instructions' well enough to regurgitate 'hypothesis'.

Can the lifespan of atomic-decay be Altered?
By Any means?

You are aware that 'nuclear' power depends on controlling the rate of atomic-decay?

Birds of a feather are very supportive of one another.

The dating methods, FM discusses are a great tool for generalising 'patterns' that aid systemic observations.

But they are based on fixed constants, of which there are none - Even 'C' (Light speed in a noted (Accepted) near vacuum depends on a 10yr cyclical average.

In an EVER changing 'Universe' Everything ever changes.

Both you and FM are either protecting your 'learned' realities, or unable to grasp the logical.

I like that you guys assure your views - It proves that the 'programme' is functional.

Jeezus Christ, WE NEVER THOUGHT OF THAT!!! Ill get right on it Mark!!!
Thanks

'WE'?
You didn't establish any 'physical' foundations - You study rocks based on 'supplied' equations - That are fundamentally variable.

If I measure something with a Ruler and it's 6 inches long - I accept that my Ruler is absolutely dependable, also.

And every other Ruler (No two Rulers are identical) is imprecise.

In a static-state universe - Everything is a Constant.
In a shifting-state universe - There are NO constants.

So - In response to the OP and the scientific community (Ad academia) - I State that 'Radiometric-dating' is highly accurate (The moment it is measured) (NOT precise).

you must be a real tough guy at the ice cream stand eh?

I have no idea what your first sentence was even getting at?? can you clarify a bit? I usually use a hammer in the field.

1. I'm not a 'creationist'. (In any way you'd comprehend).
2. I have no argument with 'highly accurate' dating processes.
3. My first line - Removes 'You' from the 'We' of 'the development of dating-processes (You are a geologist - Very respected by myself - Not a physicist or mathematician) - 'You' rely on 'accurate' (NOT PRECISION) formulae that is accepted (And highly accurate).

I have asked you, previously, to date the 'Sphinx compound' - You haven't been helpful.

There is no sense in arguing with Mark Noble. He has his own (rather unique) take on reality. Everyone has a right to live in the reality of their choosing.

As long as other readers understand that his reality has nothing to do with science, I am OK with that.