Yes, because radiometric dating does not make the assumptions that young earthists claim that it makes, and the assumptions that it does make are not as untestable as they make it out to be. This is something that I’ve explained to you before.
There’s something that you need to understand here. If you want to challenge the assumptions behind a scientific technique without being guilty of lying, there are three things that you MUST do:
- State accurately and precisely what the assumptions are.
- Make sure that the technique in question really does make the assumptions that you are claiming that it makes, and that it hasn’t been superseded by a more modern technique that has found ways to bypass or test those assumptions.
- Provide a mathematically coherent, logically consistent and numerically precise explanation as to how the assumptions could have been violated in such a way as to remain consistent with both the physical evidence that we see in nature and with whatever alternative hypothesis you are proposing.
The bottom line is this. If you are going to challenge a scientific technique, you MUST challenge what scientists who use it actually do in reality in the present day, and not an over-simplification, outdated version, cartoon caricature or garbled misunderstanding of it. Because attempting to debunk something that does not accurately represent how the technique works in reality is a straw man argument, which is a form of lying.