Creation radioactive dating
Its results have been shown to be inconsistent, discordant, unreliable, and frequently bizarre in any model.
Creationists have, in particular, pointed out the weak assumptions on which the method is based, and the contradictory nature of its results.
However, there are several clues that past rates have changed, or that some other process dominated.
For example, the existence of short half-life polonium halos in rock have been used by many to argue for rapid formation (i.e., creation) of host rocks.
For allegedly older samples K-Ar is used to "date" the standard and as such it still has the same problems as K-Ar dating.
K-Ar and Ar-Ar can result in negative ages when atmospheric argon is considered.Quick cooling or not having contact with the air can affect theoretical mechanisms for "resetting" the clock.Some times radiometric dating produces impossible results.However, as we look forward to a better alternative, it would behoove us to look back and restate the powerful tried and true arguments relating to the erroneous assumptions and contradictory results.Assumption One: The radioisotope decay rates have been constant throughout the past.