But my point remains intact. Many highly capable scientists claim the accuracy of the various geochronological dating methods is dubious. They also claim that none of the dating methods are consistent with one another, beyond a few thousand years.
What really troubles me about the whole thing is that the evolutionists advance their "discoveries" and theories as though it's indisputable proof of their conclusions, when in fact there is much dispute amongst scientists regarding the age of the earth and the various dating methods. But the msm, public school texts and university professors make no mention of these serious disagreements and debates within the scientific community, (which tends to make it all the more questionable).
Prove it..
Where's your source?
There may have been questions and controversy 40 years ago, but there isn't much, if any in the present..
Questions of accuracy have been answered...
Improvements in technology, accuracy of measurements, reductions in the amount of sample material required, and additional processes, tools and techniques have made any such arguments moot..
Your argument holds no water...
No, it doesn't. Anybody stupid enough to think that a footprint can be carbon dated has no business whatsoever criticizing the scientific method. You use the phrases "many scientists" and "much dispute" as if that means anything. It doesn't. Name the scientists, specify the dispute, or shut up.