Wow, you're remarkably ignorant of dating methods, I see. For just one example of dating method verification, here's an exerpt from an earlier post of mine:
There are many, many samples of known age (e.g. tree rings, arctic ice layers, lake bottom layers, etc.) which can be used to multiply and independently determine how much carbon-14 was in the atmosphere in any given year, and thus be used to calibrate Carbon-14 dating methods.
For a quick article on one such study, see http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/science/dailynews/carbon0220.html
A much more technical treatment: Atmospheric Radiocarbon Calibration to 45,000 yr B.P.: Late Glacial Fluctuations and Cosmogenic Isotope Production
Such studies produce calibration results such as the following:
If the amount of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere had been exactly constant throughout time (and no one expects that it has been), then the results would fall on the straight diagonal line. Instead, the wiggly line indicates how much the actual amount of C-14 in the atmosphere deviated from the "base" amount, and from this we can know how much C-14 was actually present in any given year in the past 50,000 years.
Note that the above graph includes C-14 data from *two* completely independent sources (Lake Suigetsu varves, and ocean corals), and yet the results overlap beautifully, confirming each other. There is similar match from C-14 studies based on tree-ring data and other sources.
From this, we can build a Carbon-14 dating calibration or "correction" curve which can be used to confidently produce an accurate date from a given Carbon-14 measurement. These calibration curves look like this:
There are many databases available which are used to compile massive amounts of data to ensure the proper calibration of carbon-dating. For just one example, Marine Reservoir Correction Database.
Other methods are used to cross-check and calibrate other dating methods to ensure accuracy.
Science can't determine with any reliability how any given artifact arrived where it was found or what conditions led to it. The most they can do is try to look smart when pontificating about how it props up their belief system.
Actually, they just apply all the highly technical methods that you know so little about.
When you date freshly formed lava flows to anywhere from 10s of thousands to millions of years old, one can say with authority that the technology is nothing but highly sophisticated manuer.
No, actually, what it means is that the creationist (Steven Austin) who improperly prepared that sample was incredibly dishonest when he presented the *correct* results for the inclusion-laden sample as some sort of "error" in radiometric dating.
It's better to say "I don't know it's age" than to lie or bs people that you do when you have no basis for making claim.
Actually, it's better to learn something about a subject before you attempt to critique it. Your own post is a better example of trying to "lie or bs people" when you make up stuff about dating methods without any real knowledge of them.