Again, we’re arguing different use cases, but they do have the one thing in common - radiometric dating. And if this common method is unreliable in one use case, how can it be reliable in another.
Now, you’ve said you’ve researched earth dating methods, but have you “researched” anything besides information coming from an old/ancient earth assumption?
Usually, what I hear is that “scientists say” such and such.
Well, OTHER “scientists say” have other conclusions, and these scientists are just as credentialed as the first group.
So, if you are intellectually honest, you have to examine the conclusions of both groups. The thing about young earth creation scientists is that they WILL acknowledge that they have a particular worldview or presupposition. You won’t find that admission amongst old earth evolutionists. They have a big, vehement blind spot about their assumptions and how their conclusions are affected by those presuppositions.
Because they're different use cases. Carbon-14 dating is useless for dating anything beyond about 50,000 years because it has a relatively short half life. It's generally used to date organic artifacts, and they won't all accumulate it at the same rate during their lifetime. There are many more variables and unknowns is some use cases than in others.
The "simplification technique" from the PsyOps manual seems to be heavily relied on by whoever you're getting your information from.