Is radio-metric dating really reliable?

Definitely not reliable, and it is amzing how many people have been willingly duped into believing it can be used to date rocks and samples (another example how evolution fanaticism can blind a person.)...please post your links....I have a physics background.

If "radio-metric" dating was the only way of dating something, you might be able to argue that it is unreliable. But when it is fitted in with all the other dating methods, it has been proven to be reliable and consistent. The simplist of the other methods is counting tree rings. I doubt anyone can argue that if you cut down a tree and it has 600 rings from the inside to outside, that tree is probably 600 years old. If a double blind study with carbon dating gives you close to the same answer, that is pretty good proof the method works.

Also, the same science that gave us "radio-metric" measurement is the same that gave us the A-Bomb, H-Bomb and nuclear power plants. One is just the fast decay of a radioactive element or isotope into another and the other is just very slow decay of similiar radioactive substances. I do not think they would be accurate in regards to one aspect of nuclear research and be so far off on another.

Here are some of the names of the various dating methods, which as a group, support each other. And not all of them are based upon radioactive decay.

ABSOLUTE DATING METHODS:

Archeomagnetism

Astronomical Dating

Dendrochronology (tree rings)

Electron Spin Resonance

Fission Track

Opacity Stimulation Luminescence

Oxidizable Carbon Ratio

Racemization

Thermoluminiscence

Radiocarbon dating

Potassium-argon dating

RELATIVE DATING METHODS:

Cultural Affiliation

Cation Ratio

Fluorine Dating

Obsidian Hydration

Patination

Pollen Analysis

Rate Of Accumulation

Seriation

Varve Analysis

So when they say something is over 60,000 years old, that is proof that the dating of the Bible is wrong.

No, it is not. Recent volcanic rock has been dated at several millions of years old. Contamination can give more recent dates, and this has been documented.

Radio carbon dating in the millions and billions of years are based on things always having been as they are now. If that were the case, we can see that the earths magnetic field is diminishing at a fixed rate. If we extrapolate backwards millions of years ago, when they tell us the dinosaurs were roaming the range, the magnetic field would have been so strong that no life could exist.

There are a lot of other rates of change that certainly don't add up to the dates that radio carbon sometimes gives.

Of course I've seen evidence to show that the human race is non existent but is it fraud.Use some common sense anything can be faked but reality still holds water.

I'll reject this drivel with eyes open.

It's more reliable than believing Methuselah lived to the age of 969.

I assume that your "evidence" will be from peer-reviewed journals. Other wise it isn't worth the electrons it takes to transmit it.

You've got to be kidding.