And I accept the majority position for the last seventy + years as do most paleontologists and geologists who make basic sense to me. Goldschmidt did his work at the same time as did those promoting eugenics with which I also disagree completely.
Radiometric dating gives a very accurate date for the formation of the rock being tested. Period. Errors are always attributable to sampling error. Clastic inclusions make sampling painstaking and difficult. The difficulty can be overcome and the isotopes being used are improving age calculations.
I am not a pathological liar as you seem to believe. How can I just accept on faith that you have held in your hands doctoral thesis that disprove radiometric dating? I’ve neither heard of nor have I read any such thing.
You are obviously and certainly entitled to your own beliefs but not your own facts. The mines at which I have worked have ore bodies and geological compositions which could not have formed six thousand or even one hundred thousand years ago. Geology works. It helps locate to oil and metals you daily use.
As for the radiometric dating, Richard Leakey did that specific “testing” regime for skull 1470 and the KBS tuff. He shopped the testing around until he got the dates he wanted, ignoring other evidence found in the dig.
As for geological bodies which could not have formed, do some real studies of the deposits laid down by the St Helen's volcanic explosion. Many of the geological formations you might be talking about were formed within a few weeks to a few months by the hydrological processes there.
And I really am bothered how you keep turning this back onto me personally. I am not a Luddite and understand that the oil and metals I use daily come from the work of science in the field. But I do know there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.