This post is weird and self-contradictory.
You claim radiometric dating is a lie, however you cling to inappropriate use of C14 dating.
Now you say creationists don't care about young Earth, when a few thousand years age was emphasized because Biblical scholars analyzed the time-line in the Genesis.
You say nobody cares about radiometric dating. By "nobody" you mean creationists. Geologists certainly care.
Yes science ignores creation science because creation science rejects science and substitutes Biblical gut feel in place of evidence.
So the bottom line is that you come to this science forum to tell us that science is fake. It is no wonder that you get so much flak in this forum.
Look, I have no quarrel with you believing in creationism. My aunt and sister-in-law are creationists, but we get along fine. The fact that we have different philosophies never comes up. But when you try to mix religion and science with your vile temper, it just doesn't work. In my mind you are just debasing your Christianity.
.
It's radiocarbon dating. Not radiometric dating. We're basically comparing the materials it is used on of organic vs inorganic. Both give radioactive ages and not calendar ages, We agreed on that.
I don't think anyone is arguing C14 dating backs up the Bible or Biblical age of the Earth which still seems what you are hung up on. C14 dating could give 50, 000 years upper limit. Wouldn't you think God would've provided an exact age if that was important? Instead, all we can do is get a range of dates for organic items. I suppose it can be used for inorganic items if C14 remains, but it won't be as consistent due to contamination.
OTOH, your radiometric dating claims 13.7 billion and 4.5 billion years old universe and Earth respectively since 1956. You provide a different parent and daughter element to provide accuracy versus the criticisms. It's your side that wants to show long time calendar age and that is where the error comes in. they're not the same and makes the dating irrelevant. Radiometric dates are not even relevant to actual calendar dates. Dating of items of known age using those methods show the error in the dating.
You geologists should care about radiometric age if that's what is important. Not claims of billions of years of calendar dating. I provided the evidence that dating of same items or items from a particular layer are eliminated if they do not match the age of the layer.
I come to the science forum to use and present creation science to counter the self-serving purpose and lying claims of atheist science such as the existance of long time to back up evolution. It's misleading when calendar ages are claimed.
Even if you claim you have no quarrel with creationism, you still tried to disprove a young Earth with your radiometric date. I just wanted to show that the radiometric date has little to do with calendar date. Why? Because of the assumptions made, contamination, and little correlation shown. If they were used on dating of know age rocks and meteors, then it would give a wide range of radiometric ages. I exposed your RADIOMETRIC dates from 1956 and am the one who know the name of the person who created radiometric dating in 1956. Certainly, not anyone worthwhile like Dr. Willard Libby who created radiocarbon dating or else he would be better remembered.
It was used on dino fossils to show dinosaurs lived with humans. It was used to show how radiocarbon age to counter the long time of radiometric age as how could C14 still have remained if over 50 K years. It's no wonder you and your side purposely avoid the C14 argument.
