blitz77 writes:
However, there are many anomalies-dating supposedly hundreds of millions of years rock using carbon dating gives only a few thousand years
...
I was referring to the layers underneath the lava flows-which by inference should be older shouldn't they? And how can that explain why the lava flows can give millions of years while the layers underneath only a few hundred?
First, C-14 dating cannot be used on material older than 50,000 years. The half-life of C-14 is about 7500 years, so in 50,000 years the original amount of C-14 would have been cut in half about 6 times, leaving less than 1/64-th as much C-14, virtually indetectable since the amount of C-14 in still living organisms is about 0.00000000010%, and it begins decreasing immediately once they die and metabolism ceases (ie, cease taking in fresh carbon).
So if you use carbon dating on any old carbon-containing rock (eg, coal) you'll find that it's age is unknown but is at least 50,000 years old.
Second, about the "many anomalies", there simply aren't any. We could get into great detail about this, and I think we already have in other threads, but the simplest reason is that if there were many anomalous dates then there wouldn't be widespread agreement among scientists about the ages of the geological layers. Many anomalous dates would have split scientists into many different camps, each advocating their own preferred dates. That this hasn't happened tells you the dates are largely in agreement.
The more important question is why, if the various dates and dating methods are largely consistent, do Creationist books and websites state unequivocally that radiometric dating is unreliable. This is a question I think only they can answer, but you might consider these words from your fellow Creationist Tranquility Base in
Message 3 of thread
Two questions concerning Radioisotope dating:
...Most modern creaitonists have recently (the last 10 years) begun to accept that the decay has actually occurred...But to deny that there is more decay in deeper rocks or that the decays haven't occurred is simply incorrect.
--Percy