Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

The claim that the idea of long ages for the age of the Earth started with atheists trying to prove the Bible wrong has been rebutted at EvC many times.
The Geoscience research Institute was set up by the SDA church to prove creation and after more than 50 years still cannot. However in their early years they had some good articles frankly looking at difficulties.
Go to Geoscience Research Institute | Origins and look for vol 8 p59-71 and vol 9 p28-51 for discussion about the early CREATIONIST geologists.Vol 8 also has an assessment of dating techniques, vol 10 looks at the difficulties of palaeomagnetism for YEC , and vol 17 a similarly YEC difficulty of the Oklo phenomenon.
And these articles are from an organisation looking for YEC evidence.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add the more specific links.

Oops, RAZD,Answers in Genesis are not likely to take Suigetsu varves as evidence for long age, but Accuracy in Genesis might!

Hi RAZD et al.I have just read AIG's article by Snelling on the Hawaiian-Emperor chain and admit to being somewhat gobsmacked. He acknowledges that the radiometric dates for the seamounts are what you would expect for the rate of current movement, but blandly says the rate of movement, RM decay, and volcanic activity, all changed in lock-step to produce this result. The wilful blindness is breath-taking.

Hi DredgeI would expect that rock art is dated by using radiocarbon on charcoal in the art.Most geology dates are reached by dating igneous layers. These can sandwich particular fossil layers to give a date for them which could be applied elsewhere.See Geochronolgy in Wikipedia for a good overview and links to more detailed discussions.The point of this thread by the irreplaceable RAZD is how various dating methods including non-radiometric support each other.