I can't believe what I'm hearing here. Richard Dawkins said that "In order to prove that a fossil was really 3000 years old, they would have to find igneous rocks which were found in proximity to the fossils, date these by radioactive dating, several different methods of radioactive dating, all of which give independent estimates of the date of the fossil."
That's simply not true.
When you date igneous rock by radioactive dating, you determine how long ago the igneous rock cooled from volcanic rock. You do NOT determine how long ago the sedimentary strata in which you find the rock were laid down. A rock may have emerged from a volcano 1M years ago, and been buried in sedimentary strata 10 years ago. Radiometric dating will still find the rock to be 1M years old.
But, of course, the date of a FOSSIL laid down in a sedimentary strata is not the date of the old rock that got buried there, but the new bones!
By Mr. Dawkins' reasoning, you could have an igneous rock that was 1M years old, bury it in the dirt next to my shoe, and then upon uncovering them both, conclude that my shoe was 1M years old.
But even further, radiometric dating of rocks assumes that the rock had a particular composition when it was initially formed. For instance, K-Ar dating assumes that the rock initially had no Argon. If there was in fact Argon in the rock initially, the rock itself will date millions of years older than it actually is.
And in fact, there are many examples of volcanic rocks being found with Argon in them.
It never ceases to amaze me how these "scientists" are either unwilling or unable to grapple with reality.