All radiometric dating is based on several assumptions that are very questionable.  For radiometric dating to work, all of the following must be true.
1.  The exact proportion of parent and daughter isotopes have to be known (how can we know when we don't even know the date?)
2.  We have to know the exact decay rate and that decay rate has to be constant even under changing conditions (this is the easiest to believe, but there is still physical evidence that it isn't true).
3.  The sample must not allow any of the parent or daughter isotope to come into or exit the sample (since most are water soluable, this is hard to believe).

C-14 dating uses the assumption that we currently have a particular proportionality of C-14 and C-12.  This proportion is present in the CO2 in the air that plants use and therefore the plants have this same proportion in their flesh.  Animals eat these plants and therefore have the same proportion.  When either dies, they stop ingesting C-14 and therefore it starts decaying into C-12 over time.
There are two problems with this dating.  Plants and animals in the ocean are further from the initial ingestion of C-14 and therefore they (and anyone/anything that eats them) with have a lower proportion of C-14 giving an older age when their age is calculated.  Also, Earth's magnetic field halves approximately every 1400 years.  The magnetic field was higher in the past.  This reduced the solar radiation which converts N-14 to C-14, therefore the C14/C12 ratio was lower in the past, once again giving older dates.  There is no measurable C-14 after less than 100,000 years and isn't very accurate over about 10,000 years.

Since rocks aren't ingesting carbon, these symptoms clearly don't work, so other radiometric methods are used, most of which have extremely long half-lives meaning there is not much change over millions of years.  They also tend to assume the sample started with only the parent isotope (which is very unlikely).  Most (if not all) cases that radiometric dating was used to test rocks of unknown ages, it gave multiple orders of magnitude higher ages.  If it doesn't work on rocks of known ages, why should anyone believe the ages of rocks of unknown ages? 

 FYI, diamonds have been found to have C-14 in them, so they can't be billions of years old.  Even if they were formed as 100% C-14, there would be none left. 

 everything you just said makes total sense to me based on my understanding of chemistry and radiochemistry and physics

i think, though, that based on much, rich, geological and rocks used in construction especially in the area of Egypt suggest that there may be errors somewhere in the record of timelines for the patriarchs

in contrast to radiocarbon dating, rock-based age estimations are far less susceptible to assumptions especilaly where the question is about "how long can - for example - sandstone stand in the face of typical erosion from the environment"

this is a much easier question to answer because there is so much corroborating evidence, especially contemporaneous and nearby structures, and rock formations of similar composition that will experience weathering stresses and so forth

they are still a little circumstantial, but far less circumstantial than radiocarbon, and i just saw a good little presentation relating to this and the ancient, mostly granitic structures at the core of many of the egyptian statues and structures that strongly suggest that at least some of them were built around 12000 years ago, or earlier

the presenter also points out that regarding the environmental factors that could have played into it, that around 5000 years ago the weather changed a lot in the region, the river became less wet, and its course, and number of streams changed, so, this can reduce the period, but probably not by so much as a question about radiocarbon dating of a flood-dumped load of preserved things might, in the context of the poor evidence about the actual C14 rates of accumulation on the surface, versus the weathering that might be washing it away

it may not actually disagree, fundamentally, except on the one point of the "creation of man" question, and this is also why i strongly recommend you look at Jubilees and Jasher for some other extant and relatively prevalent accounts of the time of Adam, because Jasher is very explicit and detailed, the book is quite long, almost maybe as many words in it as the entire old testament, and it has some small differences, as i have mentioned, it does not accuse Rebecca of encouraging explicit deception from Jacob, she does not make him the furry wraps or anything, it sorta implies that Isaac was that past it that he didn't notice

the bedrock, the stuff formed from volcanoes, and fire, in general, are reliable sources of dating, in comparison to sedimentary and carbon dating

it may well be that the entire record of Genesis is pretty much accurate, except for that first part that claims that this was the beginning of our kind, but it also implies that people lived before this, and there was a LOT more history going back that has great relevance to understanding our current historical circumstance (like more details of the War in Heaven) 

 God's word is always accurate, even the first 11 chapters.  God doesn't lie. 

 It is pretty interesting in genetics.  Scientists (including secular scientists) have looked at mutations in the mitochondrial DNA that is passed down from mother to child through the egg.  Their calculations say the first female mitochondrial DNA was about 7,000 years ago (awfully close to the Bible's 6,000 but based on assumptions that might not be accurate).  They also looked at mutations in the Y chromosomes passed down from father to son.  These calculations came out to 4,500-5,000 years which is about the length of time since the flood.

Since the men on the ark were Noah and his 3 sons, you would expect all Y chromosomes to go back to Noah ~4,500 years ago.  Since the women on the ark were 4 unrelated women (Noah's wife and each of his son's wives), you would expect their mitochondrial DNA variation to trace back to Eve ~6,000 years ago.  Science matches the Bible. 

 also, that's very interesting, it means that diamons are formed under us all the time wherever there is chunks of carbon 

 Now what else is interesting is that I've heard from friends in the industry that oil fields refill. That doesn't exactly jive with "science."  

 doesn't jive with the idiotic idea that carbon came from where?

outer space? what the fuck

no, obviously it was encapsulated into the crust and substance of the planet and it separates out like everything, silica, magnesium, iron, etc etc etc

so many things about current geological/climatological "Science :trademark:" is so obviously half baked and more retarded than fairy stories 

 carbon comes from my mouth       lol   hey m 

 Yes, carbon comes from Helium burning stars, specifically supergiants that have burnt away most of their hydrogen. 

 Carbon was created by God when He created the Earth before the stars. 

 oil pools like water/ just a fact that i've seen but does it mean    (0_O))))) reverb 

 or the whole earth and diamonds are very young 

 well, two things - there is a geologist from western australia who did a presentation i saw a few years back where he showed that by taking all the estimated ages of the parts of the earth, and deleting them to show the reversed process of expansion, it all very neatly returns to an original state where there was no oceans, according to their rock age estimates the youngest of the surface is is 200MM years... well, you know, idk how they estimate that if it's C14 related

anyhow, the point is, if the earth is expanding, then we also know already that it's not just dust falling on us from space, that isn't enough to explain this rate of mass accumulation

what would explain it, however, is a superconductive supercritical iron magnetic core in which the gravity is so intense that time slows down to such a speed that matter inside is able to stabilise, all squashed into the supercritical liquid but not liquid core, and new matter is constantly bubbling out from there

that would include C14 and all the things

also, the expanding earth could explain a lot more things and with the bogus guesses about time, maybe even the earth is actually that young... 

i don't really know at this point but i'm inclined to think that stuff like the rate of erosion of very large sandstone blocks would have to be the most accurate age estimation i have seen and i just saw it explained that there is megalithic sandstone structure, i forget where, Karnak, maybe, that has clearly lost 2' of its surface from erosion, which puts it at around minimum 12000 years old

the erosion could to have been much stronger than this, even a flood would not have made that much damage in the short time it runs for, though it would be one of the most erosive times it would have experienced, maybe it lost an inch from that, but you se what i mean?

and according to the egyptians writings, the people who built that stuff were "gods" in their words, and they also clearly had computers and robots, they left behind vases that were clearly machined by robots with higher precision than we can even measure at this point 

 You are quite right that the rock layers are made by the violent flood and the "breaking up of the waters of the deep."  
- Most fossils are either marine fossils or land and marine fossils mixed together.  This makes much more sense if the layers were caused by a global flood.
- Most animals don't become fossils when they die.  For fossils to form, it requires the animal to be buried quickly (so not even bacteria can break them down) and to be exposed to mineralized water (like sea water or volcanic water).
-  There are lots of places that sedimentary rocks were significantly bent (even 90 degrees or more) without cracking.  If they were soft mud at the time, this makes sense.  If they were lithified, they would crack.  Frequently people will say they bent because of heat, but heat metamorphizes the rocks and that hasn't happened.  These rocks layers were clearly bent while wet.
- When "scientists" say the rocks were formed over millions and billions of years, they will point to "gaps" in the rock layers.  They will point to a knife thin border between rock layers and claim there are millions of years missing, but this is nonsensical.  If millions of years have gone by, you would expect to see erosion, with gullies and even valleys, but you see perfectly flat, even borders between layers.  You don't even see animal or insect burrows.  The most likely explanation is that the layers were laid down only hours or days later, not the purported millions of years.