Lol what?
You might have something there if they had dated the earth at older than 4.5b years using those techniques.
Also how old do you think they dated the kangaroo rafts at?
IMO it's a mistake to assume that every human can process longer compound statements (eg. if X and not Y then Z). If you look carefully at buckshot's comments, such logical leaps never really occur.
Thus, if you take what he says only as individual simple statement it starts making a sort of sense.
Here he's saying that 1. carbon decay at too many years is inaccurate, which is true enough.
2. Platinum alpha decays and has a half life of 1000 trillion years. True enough
3. Statement 2 doesn't mean universe is billions of years old, true enough on its own.
4. Rubidium has a half life of 49,000,000,000 years, true enough.
5. According to your logic the earth is older than 4.5 billion years. True enough.
Taken as a compounded argument or in any sort of context it makes no sense, but as simple assertions they are true enough, and that's why he righteously believes their veracity. My previous observation that to some people science is simply a collection of simple facts fits exactly this situation.
This appears a primary reason why buckshot has such a hard time with the simplest of "explanations", because they tend to include compound leaps spanning more than a sentence. And when pressed, he just posts one line for every line he's replying to, because that's the extent of his operating space without prolonged effort.
In retrospect as I write this, I kind of feel bad for excessively mocking someone who by all evidence is relatively handicapped.