that all sounds well and good, but radiometric dating is built on a shaky assumption of where radioactive species come from as I said before
that assumption is "fusion" "within stars" which has not been replicated in a laboratory and is assumed to be the insides of celestial bodies. No one has tested those yet it is accepted as fact and taught in schools. Many would be out of a job if those theories were truly scrutinized.
I have a degree in chemical engineering and as a professional, I have run design of experiments more than most typical engineers as my focus was Quality and Manufacturing. I know how to design them, control them, and interpret them very well. As I said before radiation is a poorly understood field that has very little funding these days compared to other areas of science. Most of the work done in radiation was done in the 20s-60s and has largely died down in state funding globally let alone here in the US.
My reasons to doubt dating standards used above 100s of years (Which is comparison of half life curves in labs):
- Many of these samples when tested on different dating methods are not even close to an agreement
- There are other ways material can be turned into radioactive species (electric discharge, cataclysmic collisions, celestial collisions IE meteor strikes, etc OTHER than fusion)
- Many of the assumed dates of materials are referenced from studies done in the 1800s before radioactive dating even existed.
- Very few long natural half-lifed materials have been replicated in labs only synthetic ones.
there are many videos on youtube where you can test each of my points and find a few answers. You can stand by your beliefs as they don't bother me, but to assume it's a settled debate is foolish.