Questions

[ClearSky]

One thing of interest is the circularity of dating fossils by radiocarbon or other isotope dating and then using the index fossils to confirm that validity of radiocarbon dating. This is a simplification for sure, but you really need to look at the process to see what allegedly appears to be so perfectly obvious.

No my friend, it is not a simplification. It's just plain wrong.

Fossils can not be dated at all with radiocarbon. Radiocarbon dating works for organic material only, such as tools or bones, while fossils consist of minerals.

There is no technique at all today for directly dating fossils. Therefore, not the fossils are dated but the rocks they are buried in. And there are dozens of techniques for dating rocks. The four most often used techniques are luminescence, varves, magnetostratigraphy, and isotope dating. All those techniques use very different processes for retrieving absolute and relative ages. If you're interested you can look them up in Wikipedia.

There is no serious way for all those different techniques to be all wrong by a factor of a million. God tells us something through his giving certain ages to the rocks. Many creationists sadly prefer to close their eyes and ears to God's messages.

A similar process of reason is used to validate ideas about the inflation of the universe in a big bang model. Its sort of like how they validated the assets in the hedge fund before the bloody thing has to be written down by 500 bn.

I admit that I do not understand your remark about the inflation of the universe, can you elaborate?