People interpret those facts differently, plain and simple.
The tendency is to attack anothers interpretation of the facts and call
that interpretation not science
I am not sure if you ever presented a scientific research paper and had to defend it either in a peer journal or in the faculty. I had and I am actually in the process getting a manuscript published in the peer journal. It is an extremely rigorous process and I had to present my study twice because at the suggestion of my faculty, I had to present more thorough finding. It is not the process you describing.
Look at one simple example, stalagmite. Its growth rate can be measured like in the tree ring, and the process does not require extremely complicated scientific tools and apparatus. Some of the stalagmites can be several million years old, because the yearly deposit can be measured. Within one cave system the samples can determine the age of the cave formation and growth rate.
Over the weekend I saw a stalagmite that was about 2 million years old, and it is still alive and growing. The science currently will not give you exact year the first deposit was made, but through statistical measure they can present with a degree of confidence that the stalagmite is old 2 million years. In some point in the future, when better and more accurate measures are developed, the science will give a better accuracy. This is what science does.