Good scientific research considers all of the data rather than picking and choosing only that which supports one’s bias (i.e. Radio Isotope age-dating for rocks - couple that w/ a google of Mt. St. Helens).
You know what's ironic about the radioisotope dating methods? They rely on such completely unrealistic starting assumptions that there is no possible way they can credibly be considered to be accurate at all. In fact, we KNOW from reproducible scientific experimentation that the assumptions of "no starting levels of argon" in zircons (dated using the K-Ar dating method) are verifiably false.
But, "scientists" use these methods and numbers because they give the "right" numbers.
Nevermind that there are documented cases of basalts and other rocks that we KNOW cannot be more than a century or so old (because we know when the eruption occurred, etc.) that give false positives of being tens or hundreds of millions of years old.
Sorry, evos, but radioisotope dating, at least as it is presently employed, is as uncredible as the "global warming" mythology.