One of the most common tactics I see used is misapplication of dating methods. An example is their reference to using 14C to show stuff is younger than claimed or using longer range dating methods to show that material that is actually young dates as older.
The reason that this is a con is that each method has a range where it will be effective. Outside that range what you get is a nonsense answer.
also, i tend to see claims about using c-14 to date
inorganic material which is impossible.
A claim I have seen on many (unfortunately Christian) sites is of dating Hawaiian basalt using the potassium-argon method. The samples were known to be only 200 or so years old yet they got readings that were in the hundreds of thousands of years.
Well, frankly no shit. That is to be expected. The potassium-argon method has a usable range of from some 100,000 years to about 4,000,000,000 years.
no, the dates that study gave were accurate. it's the creationists that lie -- the study was dating
inclusions, not the new rock. inclusions,
by definition, are older than the surrounding rock. this is basic geology, but that seems to be something creationists either don't understand, or want to decieve people about.
™ Version 4.2
