Yet dating systems other the carbon dating require many absurd assumptions that are impossible to falsify thus making them scholastic authority not the scientific method.
“There are but two ways of forming an opinion in science. One is the scientific method, the other, the scholastic. One can judge from experiment, or one can blindly accept authority. To the scientific mind, experimental proof is all-important, and theory is merely a convenience in description, to be junked when it no longer fits. To the academic mind, authority is everything, and facts are to be junked when they do not fit theory laid down by authority”
From the short story “Lifeline” by Heinlein who was one of the first to speak out against the “settled science” of academia, way back in the 1940s.
No, because in any example where those assumptions were, if fact, false, they produce inconsistent results.
Only accurate assumptions produce the expected consistent results.
Indeed, it's multiple cross-checking and cross-referencing of results from different methods which provide some level of confidence that assumptions are confirmed.
And here is the ultimate confirmation of those scientific "assumptions": radiometric dating can predict which types of fossils will later be found in a particular geological strata, and/or the types of fossils found in a particular strata can predict the results of later radiometric dating.
So that's not "absurd assumption", but rather confirmed scientific theory.
If the assumptions are so absurd how come radiometric dating is such an accurate tool? If scientists want to go looking for a particular type of fossil, they look in rocks that have been dated to the period that specific type of creature lived because that’s where they are.
T Rex fossils are found in rocks dated to the Cretaceous period and not in any others. I often wonder if Creationists when they decide to go fossil hunting just pick up their tools and start digging randomly because that’s what the logic of their position on rock dating leads to.