Well, actually, some scientists claim that a world wide flood can cause problems with carbon dating and those millions of years the earth has been hanging around may not be accurate.
Th only somewhat accurate dating method is carbon- however- it is only ‘accurate’ out to around 8000 years or so-
I had a link that discussed all the major forms of dating materials, and showed how each one had serious flaws- and had another link showing how scientists would throw out results that didn’t jive with their long age agenda- and only keep the results that supposedly showed a long age- I used to get into the evo/creation debates way back when- and did a lot of research on these issues because inevitably an evo or long age creationist would claim that ‘the science shows that short age earth isn’t accurate’- I also kept notes on the impossibilities of macro evolution- biological, mathematical, physical, thermodynamic, chemical impossibilities- and had loads of notes on irreducible complexity-
I’ll see if i can find the errors in age dating methods- There is a ton of evidence refuting macro evo claims, and plenty of evidence showing young age AND a need for an intelligent designer if folks would just be willing to at the very least- put some time into objectively researching the two issues-
I had a better list and explanations than the following, but the links if still valid, will detail what’;s wrong with each process, and why they are inaccurate:
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 (The tree rings are not consistent, especially during drought years- which throws the readings off-
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/
Some scientists claim? Carbon dating has also been done with moon rocks and mars meteors. Are you suggesting the moon was flooded as well?