All accuracy depends on the basic premise being valid. Only if there was this nature would the dating at any error range be accurate. If the nature/forces/laws were NOT the same then the dates are nowhere in the realm of reality at all.
Tree rings that grew in the former nature in days cannot be used to date. Obviously. DNA as far as we know did not exist even! Not the same way we know it. So you cannot use genetics at all for the far past, there IS no DNA from that time. Ice layers in the former nature were not formed in the same time and way as now, so looking at them all as if they were is religion. Sediment deposition also in a former nature was just not the same so cannot be gauged by the way things get deposited and formed now. Corals in the former state also cannot be thought to have grown the way they now do. In all ways you use the same one belief. Nothing else...ever.
Not true. Show us how a depth tells us precise years? Show exactly why the number of 25,000 years was used?!
Very funny. Show us HOW the cave was dated. (before the decay dating). You see science is circular reasoning.
No the DNA shows nothing of the sort. Try and support the claim and learn why not. The fossil record does not confirm any genetic record for the far past at all by the way.
Lie? If there was no DNA as we know it how could it lie, or do anything else? Your problem is how you look at current DNA! (Don't blame the DNA for the lie in that case)
You keep harping on about former nature being the same, and as yet you have provided nothing but opinion to bolster your claim. I do mean NOTHING!
Wildly assumptive. God has specialized animals/bugs/bacteria etc in many cases even today that dispose of certain remains! The snot worm for example. You are in no position to claim there was not more and better such creatures that aided the former nature in disposing of certain remains!!!!
Wow such projection, you have not put forward even a basic premise, yet alone an accurate one.
So provide evidence of an alternate nature within the last 13.8 billion years? Because hats how long science knows this nature has exist.
Bull. Show that an alternative nature existed in which trees grew
No need for dna to exist millions of years ago, its history is encoded in itself.
Your evidence that ice layers formed differently in the past is? Ahh right.
Same for sediment
Same for coral
You have lots of opinion but nothing of any relevance to back it up.
Once again bull, your opinion is not scientific evidence. When you provide evidence for an alternate nature then i will be willing to attempt to educate you on the nature of evidence. Assuming you are willing to learn.
At the claimed time of Noah's flood, 4500 years ago sna evidence exists.
Yes I know how that feels. You started the alternative nature claim which has no evidence. Evidence for nature as it is is encoded in its chemical makeup. Your approval is not required.
Provide evidence of god then you can start making claims about what god does. Until then you are simply assuming the will of a god matches your own silliness.