Replies

Mechanicos: "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."

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.

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.

Actually, this is what is known as circular reasoning.

I agree that science is doing the best job possible with the information it has, but constructing the past via inductive reasoning alone is a tough assignment. That is why I objected to the claim of "definitive truth" in the article.

Its only scholastic authority not sceintific method. Look again at the list of assumptions required for the radiometric dating theory. None of those is falsifiable but are taken as authority regardless.