These "millions" of semi-accurate dates have correlated throughout the stratigraphic layers of the earth. Are they usable for giving a rough estimate of age..Can we rely on the radiometric dates alone...no, we can't.
Appearance of age means that the created object lies about its true age, and since God is Truth, He cannot lie. The next section is Testing Radiometric Dating Methods.What we have to decide this issue is the evidence from God's creation, and not our assumptions.Job 12:8 says "speak to the earth, and it will teach thee." Secular and Christian scientists, outside of a religious framework, have examined God's creation, and it says, "I'm 13.7 billion years old." Nowhere in the Bible does it state that the days of creation are 24-hour days.Microsoft no longer provides security updates or technical support for older versions of IE.I can look in my scientific journals and see apparent discrepancies in dating techniques.For example, the author gives examples of lava flows that were less than 50 years old, but dated radiometrically from 270,000 to 3.5 million years old.After a short argument, the author gives another example, that of lava from the Grand Canyon, giving an error of 270 million years. Geologists say the lava in question is 1.2 million years old..other words, they know when to ignore the radiometric dates. It doesn't mean "all dates are wrong." Remember, context. They claim no source of coal has been found that completely lacks C-14. It is made of carbon...given the amount of carbon in coal, I would expect to see a trace amount of carbon-14 even in samples that are millions of years old.(Beyond about 60,000 years, the C-14 becomes indistinguishable from the background radiation.) Why was supposed 230 million year old coal dated at 33,720 years? Supposedly, "accompanying checks" showed it was not due to contamination... After all, to say that the lab did not contaminate the specimen proves nothing.You would have to prove it was not contaminated from the moment it was excavated.I'm not going to try to defend these bad date examples. The creation science author is correct in calling this the "dating game." Where the young and old earth scientist differs is this..least the old earth scientist is playing the game..are trying to figure out this puzzle, whereas the young-earth scientist starts with the false, unprovable assumption of a 6,000 year old earth, one which flies in the face of the radiometric "dating game," and one that falls flat on its face in light of astronomical dating and stratigraphic evidence.The author uses the verse from Job, 'Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? To the author I say, "Where were you when God laid the foundations of the earth? So you can't "assume" a 6,000-year-old earth, just like we can't "assume" a 13.7 billion year old universe.