@firedragon
To give you an example of dishonest creationists...
...note that I am not talking about you, firedragon, because I don’t think I’ve ever talked to you about this example.
Every geologists, geophysicists, nuclear physicists, archaeologists and paleontologists know of the limitation of radiometric dating methods, especially the carbon 14 isotope method, which has a half-life of just 5700 years, and become increasingly of sample of over 50,000 years.
They know to use alternative methods of different isotopes that can accurately measure rocks, biological matters and fossils that are older than 60,000 years or more, such as argon-potassium (Ar-K), uranium-lead (U-Pb), etc, which can hundreds of millions of years, the later (U-Pb) can even measure samples of billions of years.
No paleontologists would ever use C-14 radiometric to date human remains/fossils or objects made by humans from the Middle Paleolithic period or earlier.
No paleontologists would ever use C-14 radiometric to date dinosaur fossils. They would one or more of the other isotopes.
Now one of the favorite claims that creationists like to point out is that science is no good at dating fossils, man-made objects or rocks, is that C-14 method failed to measure things older than 50,000 years old, thereby debunking evolution.
But when someone explain to them that C-14 isn’t the only possible isotopes that can be used in radiometric dating methods, then creationists should be “informed” of the alternative methods (eg U-Pb, Ar-K, etc).
Once they are “informed”, then they can learn more about alternative isotopes that can be used, to avoid repeating the same mistake in the future.
But I have noticed that some creationists will use the same arguments, again, again and again, repeating the same error, no matter how many times they were “”informed”, they won’t stop using C-14 tactics.
That’s dishonest and bias at play.