[tacticalogic]

Are you implying that radiometric dating is uniformly reliable and consistent? I’m sure you’re aware that it isn’t. Tossing out dates that are contrary to prior assumptions has not exactly been uncommon.

I thought we started off with this as an exercise in following the history of Earth Age theories, and trying to see what the result of changing the assumptions made, starting at the beginning would be on current theory. I asked what seemed to be the next question in that process.

I never claimed radiometric dating was "uniformly reliable and consistent". I said it's currently considered the most reliable known method.

[RegulatorCountry]

You've brought up the topic of radiometric dating twice now, tacticalogic. The fact is that it's not uniformly reliable and consistent, showing an age of between 140 million years and almost 4 million years, for a lava flow known to have occurred in 1801, for just one notable example. This should give pause to those who would posit a very ancient “genesis,” but such results are routinely deemed anomalous and tossed out, in favor of those that support the preconceived notion going in.