The mythology of modern dating methods
* Shows how “reliability criteria” are used inconsistently, and are even waived when the result fits the ruling theory. ) Scientific Fact or Scientific Folklore: Isotopic dates are unambiguously divisible into “credible” and “non-credible” categories?
* Shows how even low-temperature fluid processes can cause open systems in dates. Reality or Rhetoric: Isotopic-dating results are usually internally consistent?
For the longest time, we have all been taught that the great age of the earth and its rocks is an established fact. Fact or Fable: The presumed reliability of isotopic dates can be assessed objectively from analytic data, and independent of any uniformitarian geologic interpretations?
It is rare that a weakness in the "millions of years" dating of earth materials is ever mentioned in standard earth science publications.
For example, in the 1940s the U-Th-He method was used.
But these tests quickly became notoriously unreliable, as they indicated so many different "ages" for the same rock layer.
Likewise, what is to stop this new dating technique from repeating the history of past radiodating methods? When more results are published, there will be enough "ages" to compare.
And when enough of them disagree, either with each other, with older dating results, or with the "ages" set forth in geology manuals, then this new "direct dating" of bone will fade out and another method will no doubt take its place. Instead of relying on a "broken" radiodating clock, researchers would be better advised to interpret the geologic record using the framework of biblical history—which matches the evidence indicating that the majority of sedimentary layers, and the fossils they contain, resulted from a global deluge just thousands of years ago.