"And if they're wrong, they're not wrong to the tune of 4 billion years plus." Actual tests show that these dating methods can be off by similar magnitudes.
Actually, the radiometric dating process shows a lot of inconsistencies. For example, if the entire earth were a giant diamond consisting of only Carbon 14, all of it would have decayed in the age that secularists assign to diamonds. Yet, it is there. True the C14 gives an "age" of 55,000, if we assume the current rate of C14 accumulation. Less radiation would inflate the age. So, unless we can calibrate theC14 formation rate, we can't really take these "ages" as valid. But, at the very least, it invalidates the billions of years normally assigned to diamonds.
Soft tissue has a comparable half-life type of decay rate. So, for the evolutionists, it is foolish to expect a dinosaur fossil to have soft tissue, yet it is there.
Since lava is supposed to start at 0 years, when it solidifies, we can compare known dates of lava formations, to what its radiometric dates give. But, when we do so, for lava that was known to erupt in less than 40 ago, we can get results over 3 million years, using the Potassium-argon method normally used for supposedly old samples. But, if the rock were to contain something that evolutionists expect to be from 3+ million years ago, it is assumed to be correct. There are various proposed solutions offered for the wrong dates for modern lava, but why are presumed older rocks immune from the same problems? Why should a method that tests wrong when we can verify it, be assumed to be right when we cannot verity it?