Any radiometric dates that show a supposedly “old” rock to be young are rejected “Few people realize that the index fossil dating system, despite its poor assumptions and many problems, is actually the primary dating tool for geologic time. In other words, radiometric dating methods are actually fit into the geological column, which was set up by [index] fossil dating over 100 years ago.”(Michael Oard, meteorologist and creationist scientist, 1984) All radiometric dating methods use this basic principle to extrapolate the age of artifacts being tested.
These long time periods are computed by measuring the ratio of daughter to parent substance in a rock, and inferring an age based on this ratio.
For example, if they believed it would take 200 million years for an ammonite (somehow) to turn gradually into say a dog, then all rocks containing fossil ammonites (the “index fossil”) would be given an “age” 200 million years older than rocks containing fossils of dogs: “…Carbon dating is used to determine the age of biological artifacts up to 50,000 years old.This technique is widely used on recent artifacts, but educators and students alike should note that this technique will not work on older fossils (like those of the dinosaurs alleged to be millions of years old).The various confounding factors that can adversely affect the accuracy of carbon-14 dating methods are evident in many of the other radioisotope dating methods.Although the half-life of some of them are more consistent with the evolutionary worldview of millions to billions of years, the assumptions used in radiometric dating put the results of all radiometric dating methods in doubt. Although the half-life of carbon-14 makes it unreliable for dating fossils over about 50,000 years old, there are other isotopes scientists use to date older artifacts.