The creationist approach of focusing on examples where radiometric dating yields incorrect results is a curious one for two reasons.
First, it provides no evidence whatsoever to support their claim that the earth is very young.
Creationists seem to think that a few examples of incorrect radiometric ages invalidate all of the results of radiometric dating, but such a conclusion is illogical.
Even things that work well do not work well all of the time and under all circumstances.
Geologist Ralph Harvey and historian Mott Greene explain the principles of radiometric dating and its application in determining the age of Earth.
As the uranium in rocks decays, it emits subatomic particles and turns into lead at a constant rate.
Try, for example, wearing a watch that is not waterproof while swimming. A few verified examples of incorrect radiometric ages are simply insufficient to prove that radiometric dating is invalid.
Where are the data and age calculations that result in a consistent set of ages for all rocks on earth, as well as those from the moon and the meteorites, no greater than 10 000 years? Second, it is an approach doomed to failure at the outset.
Measuring the uranium-to-lead ratios in the oldest rocks on Earth gave scientists an estimated age of the planet of 4.6 billion years.
Segment from A Science Odyssey: "Origins."Geologists have calculated the age of Earth at 4.6 billion years.
As a result, this method is not used except in rare and highly specialized applications.
Other dating techniques, like K-Ar (potassium-argon and its more recent variant 40Ar/39Ar), Rb-Sr (rubidium-strontium), Sm-Nd (samarium-neodynium), Lu-Hf (lutetium-hafnium), and U-Pb (uranium-lead and its variant Pb-Pb), have all stood the test of time.