My study certainly was not a waste of time, since the earth sciences are filled with the results of dating methods, which guide many uniformitarian ideas in the earth sciences.
Besides, it helps me review the results of the RATE project.
Since there doesn't seem to be any systematic error that could cause so many methods to agree with each other so often, it seems that there is no other rational conclusion than to accept these dates as accurate.
However, this causes a problem for those who believe based on the Bible that life has only existed on the earth for a few thousand years, since fossils are found in rocks that are dated to be over 500 million years old by radiometric methods, and some fossils are found in rocks that are dated to be billions of years old.
After study and discussion of this question, I now believe that the claimed accuracy of radiometric dating methods is a result of a great misunderstanding of the data, and that the various methods hardly ever agree with each other, and often do not agree with the assumed ages of the rocks in which they are found.The technical RATE books are not for new creationists or for someone with little background in geophysics or geochronology or nuclear physics.They are in-depth studies, as one would expect for the results of a research project that challenges radiometric dating.We are told that of all the radiometric dates that are measured, only a few percent are anomalous.This gives us the impression that all but a small percentage of the dates computed by radiometric methods agree with the assumed ages of the rocks in which they are found, and that all of these various methods almost always give ages that agree with each other to within a few percentage points.Young-Earth creationists -- that is, creationists who believe that Earth is no more than 10,000 years old -- are fond of attacking radiometric dating methods as being full of inaccuracies and riddled with sources of error.