Yet another load of BS posted by SZ.<quoted text>
I missed this post by How's That for Stupid.
Here is one study:
And another paper:
Radiometric dating is sound since the mathematics are correct. We know that without contamination the dates given by it should be correct. When an anomalous date appears it is time to see what went wrong.
As an analogy if we drop something it should accelerate at roughly 9.8 m/sec^2.
There are many exceptions to this "rule". For example a tall enough height could mean that air resistances becomes a factor. The object dropped could be a magnet in a conducting tube and it will slow due to eddy currents. The object could be dropped from an extreme height where the Galilean simplification could no longer be used. The list goes on and on.
The same applies to dating rocks. Radiometric dating is so well accepted that operator error is assumed if a "wrong" answer is received. As I said, there were several things Austin could have done wrong. By telling a place to simply date a sample he was the operator and he was wrong. If the sample had xenocrysts or phenocrysts he was wrong since he did not tell the testing site. If he did not keep his sample pure he was wrong with his handling and again wrong by not telling the testing site. The first thing done if you get an anomalous date is to date again. Stevarino did not do that now, did he? Austin is not a complete idiot. He probably knew that his sample could have failed. Like most creatards he probably is not honest.
I asked you for a study documenting the accuracy and reproducibility of radiometric dating on lava flows of known dates.
I surmise from your response that you do not have any such data at your disposal.
You have nothing but conjectures.
If you want to prove the accuracy of radiometric dating, you must blindly test samples of historically known dates.
You apparently know nothing about science.
The spirit of a true scientist is to QUESTION dogma...
You seem content to go-with-the-flow.