We take the radiometric dates, along with stratigraphy (I know, dated radiometrically), the specific fossil species in a rock (I know, dated radiometrically) and come up with a date. Because although not perfect, it is the best tool we have.
Even looking at geology alone, it is evident from the using a young earth. And, although you can come up with gross errors using radiometric dating, by and large, the millions of dates that have been accomplished lend support to their accuracy, granting, of course, a large margin of error.
These "millions" of semi-accurate dates have correlated throughout the stratigraphic layers of the earth. Are they usable for giving a rough estimate of age..
Can we rely on the radiometric dates alone...no, we can't.
It is important to know your way around a woman's body first of all.
It is about more than using your tongue on her vagina, you need to involve her entire body.
This principle presumes that the oldest layer of a stratigraphic sequence will be on the bottom and the most recent, or youngest, will be on the top.
The earliest-known hominids in East Africa are often found in very specific stratigraphic contexts that have implications for their relative dating.
The most common relative dating method is stratigraphy.
Other methods include fluorine dating, nitrogen dating, association with bones of extinct fauna, association with certain pollen profiles, association with geological features such as beaches, terraces and river meanders, and the establishment of cultural seriations.
Geologists know that the dates are not perfect, that's why you will see research articles trying to determine the age of a rock, and there will be ten, twenty, or more samples that were dated.
In the past, relative dating methods often were the only ones available to paleoanthropologists.
As a result, it was difficult to chronologically compare fossils from different parts of the world.