that's a load of doo- dating methods rely on preconceived notions and throw out ALL the counter evidences that do not fit in their specified timelines- it's NOTHING but interpretations and faith and discounts anythign that might suggest otherwise- there are plenty of cases that show items buried in supposedly million year old strata that just do not correspond with the preconceived timelines- daters both have to have faith in their timelines (because there are NO known or testable factos with which to date by) and faith that irreconciable unknowns are not proofs against hteir preconceived timelines.
Science goes on KNOWNS- and Testable factors- NOT on unknowns- yet dating requires FAITH in interpratations that can't be backed up with KNOWNS
You present dates as 'verifiable' and that is not fact- different interpratations discount this suppsoed 'verifiable' factor right off the bat- and you are STILL dealing with guesses and putting FAITH in the fact that that unknown actions didn't happen to throw off your preconceived notions of how old the earth should be- Catastrophic events have PROVEN the fallicy of old held beliefs and these have proven them precisely because KNOWN elements were both observed and tested as they were recorded- you can't say that of anything beyond approximately 6000 or so years ago- there were NO records- so it all falls to interpretation-
I just know you aren't going to vigorously ddefend interpretation, right? We've all seen how reliable interpretations that turn into dogma can be- especially when they are disporvoien
You have to throw away everything we know about science in order to make your case that the earth is 6000 years old. Why, even the bible does not make the claim on the age of the earth.