[Mechanicos]

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.

[BroJoeK]

Mechanicos: "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."

Of course, like any theory they can all be falsified, by evidence contradicting them.
But no such evidence exists, and literal mountains of evidence confirm them daily.

Even the most basic assumptions of science are, at least theoretically, falsifiable:

1. "Naturalism", meaning: natural explanations for natural processes only.
   So by definition, if a scientist says, "God did it", he is speaking not as a scientist, but as an individual believer.
   Overwhelming evidence contrary to naturalism (i.e., the Second Coming) would be accepted, though most likely misinterpreted.

2. "Uniformitarianism" meaning basic physical laws & processes we see today are the same as they were billions of years ago.
   Again, evidence to the contrary would be accepted -- for example, we think our current 24-hour day was far less than that, say, 4-billion years ago.
   But we don't think basic laws of physics & chemistry have changed, because of course we have no evidence for such changes.

So the issue here is not scientific "authority", but rather the lack of serious evidence to suggest otherwise.