[music_code]

I'm terribly sorry, but this is an old creationist canard that has no basis in reality. Rocks are dated by several methods involving isotopes (and not by the fossils found therein). More than one method of dating is typically used and multiple dating tests are conducted to narrow the margin of error. The whole thing is not arbitrary at all, regardless of what the rumors may be.

You're not really going to tell me that the dating methods are reliable. All of them are based on arbitrary assumptions which presume long periods of time and uniformitarianism.

[PatrickHenry]

All of them are based on arbitrary assumptions which presume long periods of time and uniformitarianism.

Hardly arbitrary. We observe isotopes. Each has an easily determinable half-life. This is evidence. It can be verified, if you care to expend the effort. True, we do assume that the universe doesn't play tricks, so we assume that the appearance of millions of years worth of apparant radioactive decay didn't happen yesterday in the blink of an eye. But this assumption isn't arbitrary either, as there are no known examples of "instant decay" which have ever been observed. Science uses inductive reasoning to develop its principles, and such principles have been remarkably effective. If there are data which undermine these principles, they will be re-examined. Until then, we're sticking with what works.

[Junior]

All of them are based on the observable decay rates and resultant ratios of parent/daughter isotopes. And, the fact that multiple dating methods agree with one another is an indication of their accuracy.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Actually most dating methods are based on quantum mechanics rather than on presumption of long periods of time. The long periods of time are inferred. It's elementary physics.