Radiometric Dating is False?

Comment on a YouTube video I commented on:

Dobbyisfree 11

Jeremy, the skeletons of mammoth itself are around 28000 years old and fossils of ancient men are about 45000 years old... your bible lies and it's a fiction... :D only creationists try to falsify radioactive dating as it debunks bible.... till this day it's most efficient way to determine the exact timelines... go and ask an archaeologist/geologist /paleontologist/paleobotanist his unbiased opinion of how accurate it is & not some retard biblical creationist like yourself... if it can accurately predict age of ancient biblical texts the same is also true for mammoths & dinosaurs... you retarded loser there are other techniques like argon dating, ESR, fission track, potassium argon dating, startigraphy... which also conclude dinosaurs were millions of years old...

Radiometric dating is totally useless. When lava that came from Mt Saint Helen's which erupted in 1980 was tested it came back millions of years old. This is common. And when different radiometric methods are used they all come back millions of years (methods you mentioned) different when they should all be the same if it were accurate. No, even evolutionists say radiometric dating is unreliable. And some say it is totally useless, I documented this from reliable secular sources in my book. As for Carbon 14 it only lasts from 50 to 100 thousand years. The asphalt seeps in Los Angeles carbon date at 10 to 40 thousand years. However, there is evidence that a nearby supernova may have stretched these dates. Also, the atmosphere surrounding the earth has changed as documented in amber and fossil shells, this would affect carbon dates also.

Below I discovered this article after I wrote my statement above. You will notice the evolutionist confirms everything I said.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dating-gets-reset/

Organisms capture a certain amount of carbon-14 from the atmosphere when they are alive. By measuring the ratio of the radio isotope to non-radioactive carbon, the amount of carbon-14 decay can be worked out, thereby giving an age for the specimen in question.

Scientific American says: Carbon 14 dating: "...assumes that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere was constant — any variation would speed up or slow down the clock. The clock was initially calibrated by dating objects of known age such as Egyptian mummies and bread from Pompeii; work that won Willard Libby the 1960 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. But even he “realized that there probably would be variation”, says Christopher Bronk Ramsey, a geochronologist at the University of Oxford, UK, who led the latest work, published today in Science. Various geologic, atmospheric and solar processes can influence atmospheric carbon-14 levels."

It has been discovered that there have been processes explosions on the sun and nearby stars have been discovered.

For the other radioactive “clocks,” it is assumed that by analyzing multiple samples of a rock body, or unit, today it is possible to determine how much of the daughter isotopes (lead, strontium, or neodymium) were present when the rock formed via the so-called isochron technique.

Yet lava flows that have occurred in the present have been tested soon after they erupted, and they invariably contained much more argon-40 than expected. For example, when a sample of the lava in the Mt. St. Helens crater (that had been observed to form and cool in 1986) was analyzed in 1996, it contained so much argon-40 that it had a calculated “age” of 350,000 years! Similarly, lava flows on the sides of Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, known to be less than 50 years old, yielded “ages” of up to 3.5 million years.

At the Grand Canyon lava eruptions took place very recently, after the Canyon’s layers were deposited. These basalts yield ages of up to 1 million years based on the amounts of potassium and argon isotopes in the rocks. But when we date the rocks using the rubidium and strontium isotopes, we get an age of 1.143 billion years. This is the same age that we get for the basalt layers deep below the walls of the eastern Grand Canyon.

How could both lavas—one at the top and one at the bottom of the Canyon—be the same age based on these parent and daughter isotopes? One solution is that both the recent and early lava flows inherited the same rubidium-strontium chemistry—not age—from the same source, deep in the earth’s upper mantle. This source already had both rubidium and strontium.

Evolution archaeologists criticized evolutionist and archaeologist, Dee Simpson head of the Calico Early Man site in the Mojave Desert California, saying that the dates she was getting of 10 thousand years were too old because it was produced from the parent volcanic rock which had these parent and daughter elements already in the when they were deposited.