In his conclusion, he states "It (Carbon-14) does not give dates of millions of years." Correct, and there isn't a geologist out there who would claim Carbon-14 to establish a date of millions of years.We know the limitations of Carbon-14..course, this doesn't prevent the author from doing a little mud-slinging at the old earth geologist!In fact, I don't mind if you ignore all Carbon-14 evidence.It doesn't matter...remember context, context, context. The next section, Many Physical Evidences Contradict the 'Billions of Years", presents other examples used by young earth creationism.Can we rely on the radiometric dates alone...no, we can't.Geologists know that the dates are not perfect, that's why you will see research articles trying to determine the age of a rock, and there will be ten, twenty, or more samples that were dated.
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..
Keep thinking about starlight, which traveling at the speed of light, took millions of years to get here.
It could not be created with the "appearance of age".
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.