Superposition
Not a valid dating method- too manyvariables must be taken into account- too many suppositions
http://www.fbinstitute.com/powell/evolutionexposed.htm
Stratigraphy
http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/publications/bulletins/135/home.html
Dendrochronology
Up to 10000 years tops
Radiometric Dating Methods
problems with radiometic http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html
Obsidian Hydration Dating
Many obsidians are crowded with microlites and crystallines (gobulites and trichites), and these form fission-track-like etch pits following etching with hydrofluoric acid. The etch pits of the microlites and crystallines are difficult to separate from real fission tracks formed from the spontaneous decay of 238U, and accordingly, calculated ages based on counts including the microlite and crystalline etch pits are not reliable.”
http://trueorigin.org/dating.asp
http://www.scientifictheology.com/STH/Pent3.html
Paleomagnetic/Archaeomagnetic
Very little info on this method
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/tecto.htm
Luminescence Dating Methods
http://karst.planetresources.net/Kimberley_Culture.htm
Amino Acid Racemization
http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/amino/
Fission-track Dating
http://www.ao.jpn.org/kuroshio/86criticism.html
Ice Cores
Varves
At best- the two methods above are only accurate to about 11,000 years due to numerous conditions and environmental uncertainties
Pollens
Corals
Highly unreliable- you’d need constant temps to maintaIN reliable growth pattersn http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i1/coral_reef.asp
Cation Ratio
Fluorine Dating
http://www.present-truth.org/Creation/creation-not-evolution-13.htm
Patination
Known times only throuhg analysis of the patina
Oxidizable Carbon Ratio
Electron Spin Resonance
Cosmic-ray Exposure Dating
Closely related to the buggiest dating methods of Carbon dating
why it’s wrong:
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#Carbon
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3059
RaDio helio dating disproves:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/369
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/
http://www.rae.org/
Thanks for the additional links, CottShop!
There´s no link to support the assertion you make about ice cores and varves. I presume that´s an oversight, right?
I just love how the evos have to deliberately misread and misrepresent the article in order to attack it.
The article didn’t say that the decay rate of radioactive elements isn’t constant at this present time.
They are saying that it may have changed at one or maybe two different times in the past which would throw off the calculations.
And of course, the evos aren’t even addressing the point of the assumptions of how much parent material existed to begin with.