Feedback about reliability of dating

Hey everybody. I ran across some info on a Christan site (The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)) that offered some data on the unreliability of dating. I was hoping to get some feedback on that info. I realize that some of the rest of the article may be outdated or perhaps unfounded, but all I'm asking is what you make of the three points listed below (he references the material in the article I cited).Of course a Christian site will give very biased information, so I was hoping to get some feedback from you folks. I figure I need both sides of the bias spectrum when reading something like that . What do you guys think about this, as in, why does it not refute the accuracy of dating techniques (which I assume is the stance most will take)? Thanks!

quote:

---

(a) Studies on submarine basaltic rocks from Hawaii, known to have formed less than two hundred years ago, when dated by the potassium-argon method, yielded ages from 160 million to almost 3 billion years (Funkhouser, p. 4601).

​

(b) The shells of living mollusks have been dated at up to 2,300 years old (Keith, p. 634).

​

(c) Freshly-killed seals have been dated at up to 1,300 years, and mummified seals, dead only about thirty years, have yielded dates as high as 4,600 years (Dort, p. 210). In our book, Creation, Evolution and the Age of the Earth, we documented one case where muscle tissue from mummified musk ox was dated at 24,000 years, while hair from the same carcass dated only 7,200 years! (1989a, p. 13). Clearly, the evolutionary clocks are drastically in need of repair!

---

Thanks all,
Jake