Whenever I ask people what they think is the most compelling evidence for an old earth, radiometric dating is the argument that comes up most often. The answers may differ slightly. One answer that comes up sometimes is:
“Carbon dating is evidence that the earth is billions of years old!”
This answer always comes from people who people who do not know much about radiometric dating. And all people who do know at least a handful of details about radiometric data will all agree that this answer is false.
Carbon dating is only one of the radiometric dating methodologies, and it is used to date things that contain carbon, usually things that have lived. But you cannot date anything older than 100,000 years with carbon dating, because then there is no carbon anymore.
Radometric dating methodology is supposed to give absolute ages. Unfortunately we don’t have time machines to validate it. Therefore, how about dating rocks of known age, or date things with methods that are supposed to give “off scale” as answer because there is no measurable amount of radioactive material anymore (like c-14 dating dinosaur bones)?
The dinosaur fossils also contain large pieces of soft tissue:
Dinosaurs cannot be as old as scientists claim.
All radiometric dating on material of known age show dates that are inconsistent with that known age. We can conclude radiometric dating methodology is not valid.
By the way, did you know this?