Other measurements, some as low as 0.5 MY, were said to be anomalously young.
These were explained as possible overprinting by an alkaline-rich hot water infusion.
It furnishes some good evidences that creationists often use.
But we won't discuss the C-14 method in this article.
Certainly the majority of scientists accept radiometric dating.
And yet, there is really no scientific reason proving that radiometric dating is correct, and a number of evidences showing that it doesn't work. We'll find that faith in materialism, and rejection of any supernatural activity, is the foundation stone of radiometric analysis, even before any measurements are made.
And, of course, the public doesn't usually hear of these wrong answers.
This statement - that radiometric dates are "corrected" by reference to evolution-based index fossils - is hotly contested, but examination of the technical literature shows that it is true, in spite of what elementary textbooks say. Documented Discrepancies The general public believes that radiometric results are consistent and thus demonstrably reliable. John Woodmorappe did an extensive literature search, looking at 445 technical articles from 54 reputable geochronology and geology journals.1 These reports listed over 350 dates, measured by radiometric methods, that conflicted badly with the ages assigned to fossils found in these same strata.
"Bad" samples are the ones that give dates not in conformity with evolutions classic illustration of circular reasoning.5 Grand Canyon Dating Creationists have criticized many aspects of dating rocks by radioactivity, but have offered little real proof that the method is flawed.
Nontechnical readers can skip the box-figures, however, without losing much.
Experimental Errors The methods that give ancient ages produce almost as many "wrong" answers as "right" ones.
They covered "expected" ages ranging from 1 to 600 million years.
In almost every case of a discrepancy, the fossil dates were accepted as correct. Woodmorappe quoted one researcher as saying: In general, dates in the 'correct ball park' are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are discrepancies fully explained.2 When these reports did discuss the possible causes of errors, they used words such as "possibly," "perhaps," "probably," "may have been," etc.