take it then that you do not disagree with a ~4.3 billion year old Earth? Or the dating of the fossils we find? Or the relative sequence of those same fossils?
If you consider Physics to be a true science I suspect you also consider chemistry to be a true science. Is this corre
The age of the earth has never been scientifically proven. Just check out all your science books and note how the earth keeps getting older and older in order to fit into "new" evolutionary theories.
Obviously, i don't agree with the dating of the fossils as those times keep changing and are based again on evolutionary fiction. Uniform theory of geology has about as many problems as the democrats.
of course, chemistry is a true science until the evolutionists distort it .
In other words the only 'true' scientists out there are defined not by what they do but by whether their science agrees with your presuppositions.
Since it appears your definition of a science is based on your opinion rather than on an accepted definition why should your definition take precedence over anyone else's? Heck, why should anyone even consider your definition at all?
BTW, the dates determined by radiometric methods are accurate to within a percent of two and are calibrated and cross checked using other methods.