Carbon Dating uses zero relative comparisons

My argument will be broken into the following points: 1) The mathematics of radioactivity is well understood, is intuitive, and can be demonstrated scientifically. 2) Other methods of dating samples act as corroborating evidence for the validity of this. 3) That though the proposition reasoning is valid: P1: Radiocarbon dating is unsubstantiated by evidence and mathematics. C1: Therefore, anyone who believes it is true is acting foolishly. That their premise, P1, is false, and that therefore their conclusion is invalid as they have committed a false premise fallacy. Without further ado, I will commence to argue as outlined above: The mathematics of radioactive decay is extremely well understood. This is demonstrated by the fact that we have equations which can predict, with incredible accuracy, both the radioactivity of a sample and the relative proportions of mother-daughter atoms in a sample, as functions of time. Specifically, these equations are as follows: D(t) = D0 + N(t) (exp(kt)- 1) N(t) = N0(exp(-kt )) A(t) = A0(exp(-kt )) t(0.5) = (1/k)ln(2) (Sources: . https://en.wikipedia.org... . https://en.wikipedia.org... . https://www.google.co.uk... . https://en.wikipedia.org... ) Evidence of these equations" validity can be demonstrated using Polonium, which, as a much more radioactive element (half life 138 days) than isotopes of Carbon, is more readily studied in the lab. (Source: . https://en.wikipedia.org...) From these equations, it can be deduced that: dt = (-1/((1/t(1/2))ln(2))) ln(1-A0) I recognise that this is a difficult equation to understand, but it demonstrates the age of a sample can be calculated if the half life of the material and its initial activity are known, both of which can be obtained from experiment using Geiger counters. There is a huge diversity in the types of radioactive dating methods which may be used to find the age of a sample, all of which consistently give results which agree with carbon dating. These include: Uranium-lead Samarium-neodymium Potassium-argon Rubidium-strontium Uranium-thorium argon-argon (Ar-Ar) iodine-xenon (I-Xe) lanthanum-barium (La-Ba) lead-lead (Pb-Pb) lutetium-hafnium (Lu-Hf) rhenium-osmium (Re-Os) uranium-lead-helium (U-Pb-He) uranium-uranium (U-U) krypton-krypton (Kr-Kr) Some methods of dating a sample which do not require an understanding of radioactivity include: Dendrochronology (. https://en.wikipedia.org...) Chlorine-36 Fission track Luminescence dating (. https://en.wikipedia.org...) All of these methods agree with the numbers given by radioactive dating and by each other. There is overwhelming amounts of corroborating evidence for the validity of carbon dating, as well as the above listed methods. Though my opponent would be correct to argue that if there were no evidence to support the validity of carbon dating, individuals would be "foolish" and "unscientific" to assert it as evidence to support another point, the above argument demonstrates very conclusively that he is in fact mistaken in his premise- there is an abundance of evidence all of which points to carbon dating being a valid method for determining the age of something.