Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch
radiometry is an excellent tool for determining the age of organic matter, but the further back you try to take it, the wider the margin for error becomes, and for geological purposes it's really just something to help you ballpark the age of some rocks. outside of that, you get to play this really fun guessing game - how old are these rocks? we can guess the age of the rocks by the age of these fossils. how old are the fossils? we can guess the age of the fossils by the... the age of... these... rocks. yeah. and while radiometry is a good way to avoid completely clowning yourself, it's far from bulletproof.

In simplest terms, you're way off here. Radiometric dating is LESS reliable for organic materials, and far MORE reliable for inorganic radio-decay, on the order of millions of years (not thousands).

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html

And by the way, evolution HAS been directly observed...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#observe

...even though the idea that science can only proceed by direct observation is absurd.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html

Very useful site, TalkOrigins. It distills the exchanges of a long-standing Usenet newsgroup full of proofs and discussions of legitimate science and the evidence of evolution.