This is like the common phrase that Christians like to use when studying the Bible, when we say, "He pulled that out of context." When considering the date of the world, and the universe, you have to consider all the evidence, not just one portion.
This is to get the average, or, most accurate date possible, within the margin of error that you allow.
Are there scientists out there that will swear up and down that their dates are completely accurate?
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..
If you are in the middle of space, what is a "day." If you are eternal, what meaning does time have? Before we go on..thinking "context." We can't only rest on radiometric dating.
Keep considering the rock layers, which can't be laid down in a global flood.
Sure, they exist, but are probably in the minority.
Unfortunately, these are the ones that the young earth creationist will single out and attack, because of their assumptions that the techniques are perfect.
The next section is Other Radiometric Dating Methods.