Yet all these other science-based methods that point to a much younger age than 4.5 billion years for earth's age are ignored or rejected by evolution-believing people with degrees from college who apparently think that nobody (of importance) made them. Yet when asked why they reject all but the oldest science-based dating methods, the answer often given is that (they think) long-age radiometric dating is more reliable and that science settled the matter of the earth's age many years ago.
However, when we speak of the distant past, there are no historical records and thus no verifiable way to prove that a certain 'date' is correct.
In many cases it is quite difficult to prove whether one method is superior to another: and in this regard, the only way of doing so is to closely examine how each method works and try to find fault with it.
In regard to the radiometric dating of rocks, it is known that various different radiometric methods often yield quite discordant dates for the same rock, thus proving that they cannot all be correct.
Many geologists claim that radiometric “clocks” show rocks to be millions of years old.
However, to read any clock accurately we must know where the clock was set at the beginning.
Most people think that radioactive dating has proven the earth is billions of years old.
After all, textbooks, media, and museums glibly present ages of millions of years as fact.
Yet few people know how radiometric dating works or bother to ask what assumptions drive the conclusions. This figure wasn’t established by radiometric dating of the earth itself. Radiohalos shouldn’t exist, according to conventional wisdom!
Though they are very tiny, polonium radiohalos have a huge message that cannot be ignored.