I think you meant "absolute" dating methods.

Scientific journals have been full for decades of data that correlates from different dating methods. The link I gave you in my previous post shows a list of dozens of correlative dates for the same broad area, and each individual study is cited. So now the tack you've taken is that data published in scientific journals is nothing but "claims" that people "parrot." I could very easily link you to sites that explain how different dating methods are used. I've got a good video that shows how the K-Ar and Ar-Ar method works in a way that the layperson can understand. But if you refuse to accept data from scientific journals as reality, I don't suppose you will accept any of these explanations as reality either. Anyone can sweep an uncomfortable truth under the rug and pretend it isn't there. Apparently the way you are doing that now is by claiming that scientists are liars; you, the greater expert in geology, have dismissed their research and the tools that they use.

You still need to tell me this, looking at it from the most basic perspective: How does measuring the radioactive decay that has taken place in a rock result in an erroneous age for the rock? We know how long it takes for uranium to decay to lead. We measure the amount of both in the rock. This is of course very simplistic, but where exactly do you think there is a flaw in this?



Can you not post any writing about it? Surely the claim can be boiled down to a short statement. And I don't recall seeing any videos from you that discredit radiometric dating.

For those who would like to watch, here is the video (6 minutes) I mentioned that explains it using K-Ar:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8Ii-dpRrXM&NR=1