I say PaulK and others are not factoring in our hypothesis that there was as ww flood which skews any form of modern dating technique.
Its feasible that scientists are not figuring the hypothesis of a world wide flood affecting dating methods. Because geologists are unable to discern the markings of a world wide flood. Yes you could talk about stratification, fossil layering, speedy erosin rates and etc as being supportive of the notion of a world wide flood, but it then comes down are you able to demonstrate the models?
I believe Mt. St Helens is an oft sited example of speedy erosion rates. And its fine that people point at it, but its a speedy erosion rate in a soft rock, can a speedy erosion rate be applied to rocks that are harder then what came out of a volcano? what would be the consequences of utilzing a speedy erosion rate for all rocks?
Something people keep pointing out is the extending of the science, and the consequences of the hypothesis. That portion of science is something that most that support creation science seem to neglect. And I mean you can argue for a supreme being guiding processes and changing things...but i mean at that point you aren't doing science it then becomes pointless to even build models for geology and the like. Because at any given moment Mr. Supreme being can say ahahaha light now travels at 2*10^8 m/s or the extinction coeffient for compounds is measured in seconds vs nano seconds or uranium has a half-life of 10ns, science becomes a fruitless endeavor...
™ Version 4.2