(Aside: I haven't actually been referring to carbon dating in this thread, since that is mostly used by archaeologists given the time periods involved. A paleontologist or geologist will probably use something more like uranium-lead or potassium-argon dating.)
I don't have confidence that the samples are dated accurately. When something is buried in the ground for 1 million+ years anything could happen to affect the parent-daughter ratio of the two elements. Models always have noise, and 1 million+ years of noise is well beyond my suspension of disbelief.It's certainly reaffirming when independent models buttress one another, but this is not a requisite. Carbon-based dating, for example, relies on the accuracy of the believed half-life for carbon and the procedures by which the presence of carbon is detected in objects. If you can demonstrate that either the manner in which the half-life of carbon has been arrived at is flawed or that the manner in which the presence of carbon is detected is inaccurate, you will have a good case on your hands. Constantly alluding to "mathematical models" does not accomplish this. All you are doing is drawing irrelevant tangents into the proceedings, a basic logical flaw.
Now maybe there are several independent models that confirm radioactive dating. I'm not claiming to be the foremost expert on the subject, I'm only saying that when I looked into myself the models I looked at didn't match. If I looked into it again that would still be an important thing I'd be looking for. Because it's not good to say, "let's assume this model is good until someone proves that it isn't". That is a piss poor way to do science. That's the same as just taking a stab in the dark. You need to show that the model is good to begin with in order for someone to have confidence in it.
a) I've stated my premises in plenty of threads that we've discussed these topics. In case you missed it all of those times here it is again. "I believe in ideas that work." I don't see how you could suggest that my methods are out of touch in some way. If I can be criticized for anything it is being overly pragmatic. I think that ultimately reality should be the judge of what is true and what is not. That means that the most sound ideas are the ones that have been shown to work.Secondly, I have not referred to formal logic as "voodoo". What I have, accurately, stated is that you have as of yet failed to divulge the premises and logic upon which you have based your beliefs. Rather, you've stated, in so many words, that you believe in God because "[you] can feel his presence" and whenever I've pushed you to state your premises and outline your logic, you've airily alluded to formal logic this, mathematics that, and otherwise evaded the duty.
It is this which makes you no different from every shaman in the course of man's history who duped his gullible fellow-villagers into bringing food to his hut, freeing his time up to snack on the local hallucinogen, by invoking an "other form" of understanding which defies ration and expression and which, incidentally, he possesses. (While, meanwhile, the men of ration were discovering that planting seeds resulted in harvests.)
b) I totally do not get your shaman comparison. I can assure you that I have made no profit whatsoever off of anything I've stated in this thread. (I haven't handed out hallucinogens either, lol. )