Here is at least one evidence with your own silly c-14 method that its otherwise to what you say.
Your methods and evidences are based on constant, that are not sure if even constants. Yes they seem almost constant now. But how do you know if they were always constant, or where they so from begining and such.
You just assume a whole lot of stuff.
Just like another assumption of a constant, assumes that the layers of stones are everywhere the same. That is a make believe imho. Erthquakes? Disasters, winds etc at different areas makes it doubtful at best.
It could be done by living organism in earth. Sedimentation of the earth, flood sedimentation and chemical reaction. A lot of stuff could happen not just a new layers of earth from somewhere out of nowhere
No wonder it all fits into one model. If you assume it all should fits it will. Corruption makes the world go round. Or somewhat similiar saying ancient like Rome itself, maybe older. While you ignore all other option, ridicule them, cut their fundings etc etc. People are easy to be manipulated.
Truth is not democracy - It does not matter how many people believe lies. Truth is truth.
C14 dating only works on once-living specimens. C14 is created from nitrogen in the atmosphere when it gets hit by cosmic rays, so there's a relatively constant amount in the air at all times. While living, a plant incorporates carbon from the atmosphere into its body, so it will have the same ratio of C14/C12 as the atmosphere. Animals get this too by eating plants. Then when they die, the C14 starts decaying and is not replenished, and that's what you measure to get the age of when they died.
https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/six-evidences-of-young-earth/ this article says they dated diamonds to around 55,000 years, which just happens to be about 5000 years short of the oldest date for which C14 dating can be used for living things. This is because after that many generations of decay, there's so little left it's indistinguishable from background C14 or contamination. So if people are just the slightest bit sloppy in their technique, they won't be able to accurately date anything older than 55,000 years anyway.
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/pbv3e/why_would_15_billion_year_old_zircon_crystals/?st=j6z5av4b&sh=9d0a1b48
But let's not get stuck in a few methods. Here you can find 33 different methods https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation
Of course, all of them are wrong hehe
I have brought enough light for some poor soul to believe its possible that God have created the world. Thats enough for a believer to understand those scientific constant are all made believe constant for that whole model to function.
For the ones that does not want to believe in creation, he will believe in scientific constant even tho i bet none of you understand them. And science is not about believing in something you do not understand.
Those who want to believe in creation, can believe that your mathemical constants were not always constant. Someone does not have to only believe. Its proven that those constant had varied in scientific community in history (for example a speed of light),and are varied depending on conditions (for example a variable of a temperature in radiation) etc.
Everyone has its choice, I wanted to say its that the subject is far from settled. Only those who are ignorant can say that. I am not ignorant, therefore I say I believe in creation, although not blindly. Anything could be possible from logical point of view taking into account my incomplete, corruptible knowledge.
P.S you guys probably think I am a hyper dogmatic person. I am open to everything. But you on the other hand are 100% sure of scientifc dogmas about constants that are only on one place at one time, that you do not even understand. And you give your soul for ever damnation because you believe those are true.
That is what i call a hypocrisy Die Hard level.
It's true that some of them may not be constant after all, however some of the dating methods there are not always about a particle decaying or a constant and yet all of the dating methods show the same thing. You can even prove earth is older than what the bible suggest with goddamn tree rings, give me a break.