To echo Steve Shaw...rocks ARE clocks if you use the right instruments to read them.

"...but you, bill, have already decided that creationist scientists have invented silly science to validate their faulty conclusions. "

You again mistake how my decision process... and that of 'most' scientists... works. I did not begin with a viewpoint that creationist scientists were probably wrong. I began, about the age of 14, with the idea that all 'information' presented to me should be taken seriously until some clear data, science, or reasoning showed otherwise. This included religious doctrines. When assorted & numerous inconsistencies about religion began to bother me, I wondered why there were so many. This led to my education in philosophy & logic and now over 60 years of sorting thru theories and their basis.

"...if there can be any...let alone many, inconsistencies, why should we trust evolutionist dating at all."
   What is clear is that the inconsistencies in science and in religion are just usually of different sorts... and, as I have said a dozen times, science has a built-in system for finding & resolving inconsistencies. That is what Mary Schweitzer and her team was doing....and what MOST honest scientists do! This is an entirely different system from that used by those who feel they MUST come to a conclusion that agrees with some set of religious precepts...AND.. you cannot simply "return a form of 'my' words back..." and assert that scientists are guilty of faulty reasoning and interpretation of evidence... that is a HUGE error in understanding how it all works- but you are trapped into that idea as the only one that allows you to deny the obvious.

You cannot... fairly... decide to revise the basic principles of logic and language to suit your needs.