1. The Bible is arguably the most concise, accurate historical record we have before 400BC, and has been proven correct repeatedly, never disproven with archaeology. However, you discount it in favor of Egyptian records that a full of holes & contradictions, and the timelines commonly accepted for the dynasties are often disputed amongst Egytologists.
2. Dating that relies on decay methods have numberous assumptions, such as intial amounts of parent/daughter elements, decay rates, and no outside influences, e.g. migration of elements, cross-contamination, etc. Often, dates are off by 50% with different methods, and some dates can be off by more. Several methods argue for a young earth, buit of course you will discount those immediatly.
3. Verify the earth is the age you assert, without any assumptions in the so called dating methods offered for evidence.
The real crux of the matter, is can the New Testament be trusted in it's account of Jesus resurrection. And if so, do I choose to believe he did, and if so, who is he?
1. The Bible is arguably the most concise, accurate historical record we have before 400BC, and has been proven correct repeatedly, never disproven with archaeology. However, you discount it in favor of Egyptian records that a full of holes & contradictions, and the timelines commonly accepted for the dynasties are often disputed amongst Egytologists.
The Bible has been "disproved with archaeology" in at least one instance. There is simply no evidence for a global flood at the appointed time. You can deny that evidence, or you can disbelieve it, but that will not make it go away.
2. Dating that relies on decay methods have numberous assumptions, such as intial amounts of parent/daughter elements, decay rates, and no outside influences, e.g. migration of elements, cross-contamination, etc. Often, dates are off by 50% with different methods, and some dates can be off by more. Several methods argue for a young earth, buit of course you will discount those immediatly.
You seem to be equating "assumptions" with "baseless guesses." That is not correct.
You berate scientists for, as an example, assuming decay rates are constant (an assumption for which there is a lot of evidence). But by taking the opposite position, that decay rates fluctuate all over the place, you fall into an even bigger contradiction than the one you accuse scientists of because there is no significant evidence that decay rates do fluctuate. It seems that you are the one with the "baseless guess" here, not the scientists. Your other objections are on the same order. Scientists do not just pull assumptions out of the thin air.
But if you want just one decent dating method, try tree rings from the standing dead bristlecone pines in the White Mountains of southern California. You can count individual rings. You can see the effects of volcanoes and other natural disasters of known dates in the rings, and they show up where they should (that demolishes the argument of more than one ring per year). And by comparing the ring sequences from many trees, and overlapping those sequences, you can go back some 12,600 years. This ring sequence in turn can calibrate the radiocarbon dating method, as it accounts for atmospheric variation of 14C. So, another one of those nasty assumptions is cross-checked.
3. Verify the earth is the age you assert, without any assumptions in the so called dating methods offered for evidence.
Nothing wrong with assumptions, as I have noted above. They can be checked and poorly-supported assumptions don't last long.
If you are interested, here are some good links for the radiocarbon and radiometric dating methods:
ReligiousTolerance.org Carbon-14 Dating (C-14): Beliefs of New-Earth CreationistsRadiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.
This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.
Are tree-ring chronologies reliable? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)
Tree Ring and C14 DatingHow does the radiocarbon dating method work? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)
How precise is radiocarbon dating?
Is radiocarbon dating based on assumptions?
Has radiocarbon dating been invalidated by unreasonable results?
Radiocarbon WEB-info Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Waikato, New Zealand.