No you haven't.
Any date is an article amounts to the personal wilda$$ guess of the first scientist they talked to and is subject to being changed with every additional person asked.
Wow, this is such a load of complete horse manure. You really don't have any idea how such dating is actually done, so you just make up whatever pops into your head about how it "must" happen, eh?
What annoys me is not that I have some pre assumed age of the earth and reject all else out of hand. What annoys me is that articles always toss out a date like that as a proven fact when it is simply and vague estimate based on whichever model (of many to chose from) the leading researcher on that site decided to use.
Posting your fantasies about the process again, eh?
I always laugh when someone tries pretend dates articles toss out are actually well proven and that questioning them is some how a sign of ignorance or delusion.
Proverbs 29:9: "If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet."
Complete BS. The dating for this was probably done in several ways with widely different results and they simply averaged them or picked the one they 'thought was most reliable' (liked best).
At least this time you finally slipped and used a word ("probably") that clearly indicated that this *is* just your fantasy, and not based on any actual knowledge...
Before you attempt to critique something, make sure you actually have working knowledge of it first.