Is radiometric age dating accurate
The actual accuracy of radiometric dating is about 2%, but there is no point in splitting hairs for this debate as to whether it is 2% or 3%.An error of 90% would, for example, still disprove Young Earth Creationism.Age estimates can be cross-tested by using different isotope pairs.Results from different techniques, often measured in rival labs, continually confirm each other.Sediment columns giving an unbroken history for more than 25,000 years have been identified in about 30 locations around the world.Coral growth patterns are also seasonal and provide a long independent date history. The dates obtained by different radiometric isotope pairs cross-check each other.For dating back to about 35,000 years, sediment layers are precise. Sediments include different types of pollen depending upon the season.Consequently, individual years can be identified by season, so there is no possibility of layers being confused.
Uranium 235 decay to lead has a half-life of 713 million years, so it is well suited to dating the universe.
In fact, they track because radiometric data is accurate.
An expert scientist summarizes: "The first radiometric dates, generated about 1920, showed that the Earth was hundreds of millions, or billions, of years old.
Anyone questioning the accuracy of radiometric methods is obliged to explain why the cross-checks to sediments, coral growth, tree rings, and other isotope pairs all have the same errors.
Why would an error in radiometric dating correspond to errors in the other methods so that they all track?