I'm thinking you didn't look at any of the links I posted for radiometric dating CTD, am I right?
Blind tests are done as standard procedure in ALL FIELDS of REAL SCIENCE.
Did I say that it's never done in radiometric dating? I even explained to you how you could go do it. If you get a result that says that your sample is younger than the youngest age the method can define, you try a different method. If you get a result that says that your sample is older than the oldest date the method can define, you try a different method.
I said,
you do it with several methods and you do them on individual minerals separated from the rocks.
You said,
False. Different methods are used for different kinds of rock. You can't use several evodating methods on any sample.
You seem to be deeply mistaken here. While there are some exceptions, generally you can use any kind of method that works for the age of the rock and perform it as many times as you want, using different laboratories if you like, since that can work as a good control. (You really didn't look at any of those links I posted did you.) You can also date individual minerals in the rocks. What's more, lava can also contain xenoliths, which are impurities that did not fully melt and whose isotopic clocks have not been reset. You have to remove these or you will get a false old age for the rock. Creationists trying to "prove" that radiometric dating gives dates which are way too old, such as Steve Austin, have been known not to separate the xenoliths from their samples -- a "mistake" no honest geologist would make. It's quite easy to date a xenolith and a pure sample separately.
Mighty big 'if', and even then, it's only really good if the assumptions are good.
Scientists routinely run more than one test, using more than one type of dating method, on samples. If there is consilience then that's a pretty good indication you've got a genuine age. Some important samples such as moon rocks have been dated many times over. You really should have a look at the links I posted.
Like you criticizing creation models?
You're funny. It's not hard to understand "there was a global flood" or "the earth is 6,000 years old." The problem is that I also know some real science and the real science points to evidence that these claims are wrong.
I've read some other sources as well. Have you?
Sure. When people are in total avoidance mode here I'll sometimes look at AiG or similar. It's just as well to see what they're trying to claim now. Sometimes it's good for a laugh.
