Billions of Years!

How do the believers in Common Ancestry 'know' that the earth & universe is millions or billions of years old? They don't. They ASSUME it. There is NO verifiable, testable, or quantifiable method to measure dating for these time frames. They are all fraught with assumptions & speculations, then declared as 'scientific fact'. But what are these 'methods'? I'll list a few:

1. Seasonal rings.
We can 'measure' the age of a tree by its rings, so this same logic is used in some glaciers in Greenland, which they declare to be 123,000 years old. Some in antarctica are measured & declared to be 740,000 yrs old. But the central problem with these calculations is the assumption of uniformity. They ASSUME that the earth has always been as it is now, & there were no mitigating circumstances that might have laid down multiple layers in a short time. But we observe evidence of very tempestuous times in the earth's geography. How can we even theorize uniformity? Plate tectonics, volcanic activity, massive flooding, moving glaciers, constantly changing upheaval in the earth's surface makes assuming annual uniformity of ice deposits impossible. There are too many variables to assume that.

2. Radiometric dating. This is done by taking the half life of an isotope, which can be measured by extrapolating backward in time, to when it was full. Greenland seems to be a popular hangout for the old earth Believers, & it was here they 'discovered' rocks they declare to be 1.3 billion years old. They make this assumption thusly:
1. Potassium-40 is trapped in molten lava, & has a half life of 1.3 billion years.
2. Potassium-40 decays into argon-40.
3. by measuring the content of both in the rocks, you can extrapolate their age.
They use other radiometric dating, including uranium & carbon-14 in the same way.
But this, too if full of assumptions:
1. The countdown started at full. If some isotopes are trapped in molten lava, or laid down in a strata, how can you assume it began at full strength?
2. The decay rate is assumed to be constant. Why? How can this be assumed? The universe is full of drastic changes, passing asteroids, solar & weather changes, magnetic fields, & constant change in the earth's surface. It is a pretty wild assumption to theorize uniformity in deposits or decay of anything.
3. Often, samples taken a few feet apart in a test setting produced wildly different measurements.
4. The amount of the original parent & daughter isotopes in a specimen are unknown. How can you assume 100% parent at the beginning, & 0% daughter isotope? How could that even have happened, in an ancient, ever changing, big banging world of exploding matter?
5. Dating methods are constantly producing impossible results. They pick & choose the ones that 'fit' within their assumed time frame, & toss out the ones that don't. A diamond, for example, is allegedly billions of years old, as is coal. But some have been measured to have carbon-14, which would have completely dissipated according to their own time frame. But problem evidence is just dismissed, while the 'evidence' they like is embraced.

3. Speed of light & expanding universe.
Here the argument is that we can see light coming from millions of light years away, so it must have taken millions of years for the light to get here. They also theorize an expanding universe, a la the 'big bang'. All of matter was once, somehow, compressed into the size of a pea, or such, & suddenly exploded. Some scientists have measured this expansion rate, assumed it to be constant in time & space, & declared the age of the universe.
a. If the speed of light is absolutely constant (a big assumption) AND the universe is expanding uniformly (another big assumption) the times should match. They don't, unless you juggle them.
b. There are other possibilities than a 'big bang', & assumed expansion.
c. This presumes light & the expanding universe as a constant. Einstein has suggested some 'relativity' into the mix, which makes these assumptions faulty.

4. Strata. This one is not bandied about as much, but is slipped in from time to time. If a fossil is found in a strata, it is declared to be a certain age, depending on the strata it is found in. But how is the age of the strata determined? By the fossils found in them. They use the conclusion to prove the premise! The assumptions of the age of the strata date the fossils, & the types of fossils date the strata. It is all declared dates, with no empirical methodology to produce it. It is merely circular reasoning, another logical fallacy.

Other problems:
1. Earth's magnetic field.
The magnetic field of the earth has been measured to be ~1400 yrs. If you ASSUME uniformity, the strength of the field would be too powerful if you go back more than 10k yrs or so, & would have vaporized everything on the planet, having the heat & energy of a magnetic star. To solve this, the old earthers suggest 'flipping magnetic poles'. Somehow, for no known reason, & by no known mechanism, the magnetic fields reverse themselves from time to time. They demand uniformity in all their other dating methods, but want some leeway with the magnetic field.
2. Atmospheric helium. When some isotopes decay, they release helium-4. If we assume a zero starting point (as they do with all other radiometric dating processes) then we can measure the helium isotopes in the atmosphere, & extrapolate backwards to when it started. These calculations yield less than 10k yrs, not millions or billions.

There are a lot of problems with the dating methods, & declaring millions & billions of years dogmatically as 'fact' is a disservice to the scientific method, & is a return to 'science by decree'. Dating methods are too variable, & based on too many assumptions. It is part of the religion of atheistic naturalism, & is based NOT on scientifically proven facts or valid theories, but decrees & mandates: Assumptions & Assertions.

It is just like the 'science' of times past, when the earth was declared to be flat, the sun revolved around the earth, & that life spontaneously arose from non-life. It is a mandated & indoctrinated belief, with no scientific evidence.

Thinking people with a basic understanding of science & the scientific method should not be fooled by these pseudo scientists. They deceive gullible people with their bluffs & dogmatic declarations, but there is no scientific evidence for the dates that they propose. None of them can stand under scrutiny, & should be classified as speculations, not trumpeted as scientific fact. These phonies do the same with other factual disciplines. They promote global warming, which has no basis in scientific reality, & is just a political agenda masked in pseudo science terms. They also distort economic numbers & fiscal matters. Truth, facts, & evidence are just propaganda tools, & have no meaning to those promoting some ideological narrative. Evolution & naturalism as origins is the same thing. It is pseudo science jargon, presented in an intellectually titillating way, delivered with smug arrogance, masked in techno babble, but with NO empirical, scientific basis. It is a religion.. a philosophy about the origins of life. It has no scientific basis.