Assumptions used in radiometric dating
The “correct” answer is chosen on the basis of stratigraphic sequences, that is, what kinds of fossils are buried nearby.
Of course, the fossil dates depend on the assumption of evolution.
One is the Carbon-14 system used for dating fragments of once-living organisms.
It’s never used for non-organic samples, and almost never even attempted if the sample is thought to be much older than about 50,000 years.
Leakey declared that the skull was 2.9 MY, and said that it “fits no previous models of human beginnings.” It was named KNM-ER-1470 (for Kenya National Museum, East Rudolf, #1470).Most people, even the experts in the field, forget the assumptions on which radiometric dating is based.Radioactive Dating There are basically two different kinds of radioactive dating methods.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.