This new direct fossil radiodating technique will no doubt cycle through the same "believe it while it's new until something better replaces it" sequence.Creation researcher John Woodmorappe reviewed this historical trend, noting that each radiodating technique remains in vogue for one or two decades before its inconsistencies pile up enough to warrant its replacement.
Three geologists have reported what they called the first "successful" direct dating of dinosaur bone.Will this new radioisotope dating (or radiodating) technique solve the problems that plagued older dating methods?If history is anything to go by, then the answer is no.The process generally used to date a fossil is circuitous and subject to differing interpretations.It has involved tracing the related sedimentary rock layer horizontally from the place where the fossil in question was found to a place where it is underlain or overlain (or both) by igneous rock.Igneous rock layers can supposedly be directly dated, so sedimentary layers sandwiched between them are interpreted to have been deposited in between the "ages" assigned to the igneous rocks.
Where igneous rocks are absent, a fossil's "age" is determined by comparing the fossils of one location to those of another, and then comparing those comparisons to charts in books with age assignments provided on the pages.
But in standard studies, no age assignment is ever accepted unless it conforms to the "millions of years" doctrine of evolutionary earth history.
pointed out one of the big problems with this dating approach by saying that the past "methods are far from perfect: it is difficult to gain accurate depositional ages for sedimentary rocks, and matters can be further complicated when millions of years of geologic and environmental forces cause erosion of fossil-bearing strata." They highlighted its "success" by contrasting it with the lack of success of prior dating techniques.
It is rare that a weakness in the "millions of years" dating of earth materials is ever mentioned in standard earth science publications.
But when this admission of fault occurs, it often accompanies the introduction of a new and supposedly superior dating technique.
The problem is that the new technique has in the end always proven to be unreliable.