Ooh, but you are touchy! I wonder why?<quoted text>
The way you determine if something is or is not reliable is by testing the methodology and cross checking it with established dates.
So, let's talk.
AND, when we compare radiometric dates to dates which are determined using other methods, like dendrochronology - we find the same thing. A piece of wood from the SW can be dated to the year using dend. It can be dating using radiometric and you get the same result.
AND, when we compare that with ice core dating, which is determined by the seasonal layers of ice being laid down in the polar regions, we find those dates are LIKEWISE consistent.
AND, when we compare ALL of those with sedimentary layers from the ocean floor, or lake bottoms, where the cycle of grown lays down specific layers of sediment over the course of a year, THOSE dates are likewise consistent.
So, INTERNALLY consistent, consistent with multiple different independent dating systems which rely on utterly different mechanisms, consistent with the historical record.
AND, if the mechanism were false, then entire field of nuclear physics would be falsified.
Compare that to: "My mom told me about a talking snake".
Seriously, get off the internet you boob.
Your arguments are fatally flawed as even a cursory and superficial study of available material will show that your claims are either intentionally false or just based on ignorance.
To mention a couple of examples for your information – just in case you missed the many that are available to almost all:
“In 2004, RATE published (an article) under Snelling's by-line, based on their analysis of 27 Brahma Schist samples,... The obtained results were not only discordant between and among methods, but were inconsistent within the same method. In one extreme example, two samples, taken from locations 84 cm apart, yielded dates that were more than 1350 million years different, far beyond the published tolerances.“
Wow …. Such astonishing accuracy and proves your point beyond any reasonable doubt!!!
And this from a “anti-creationist site”
“In another example, Snelling (1998) dated some Australian Tertiary basalts and got five dates ranging from 37 to 58 million years. Depending on how carefully Snelling avoided xenoliths and xenocrysts, these dates are not terribly outrageous”
(Difference is only 21million years) The accuracy is incredible and leaves no doubt to any reasonable person as to the absolute accuracy of radiometric dating, you would agree…..hehehe!!
“For example, researchers applied posterior reasoning to the dating of Australopithecus ramidus fossils. vMost samples of basalt closest to the fossil-bearing strata gave dates of about 23 Ma .”....
“The “dates” obtained from the K–Ar analyses are listed in Table 1.7 The “ages” range from <0.27 to 3.5 (± 0.2) million years for rocks which were observed to have cooled from lavas 25–50 years ago”
Now that you (should) realise the rather ridiculous nature of the claims you make, I would suggest you take a more balanced and reasoned approach
A further aspect that always makes me wonder even at reported “scientific findings” is the history of fraud related to the hoax of evolution.(Piltdown man, Nebraska man, Orce Man, The Yale Hybridization scandal, Haekel’s faked embryonic drawings, Archaeoraptor hoax, Cardiff Man, Peppered Moth, and I am sure lots more). I have always considered that if a person has to rely on lies, he either has something to hide, or is not confident of what he/she claim to be the truth.