Like the convoluted ideas they have for the recent formation of the Grand Canyon?
Their ideas about the Channeled Scablands of Washington State?
There are all sorts of problems with most forms of radiocarbon and other forms of radiometric dating. The methods themselves are based on assumptions routed in evolution. Different asusmptions arrive at different results. For example, rocks and debris at Mt. St. Helens, which we know to be only 25 years old have been dated to be thousands and even millions of years old.
Like the stretch creationists have to make in order to contradict the results of radiocarbon and other forms of radiometric dating?
Like the convoluted ideas they have for the recent formation of the Grand Canyon?
Their ideas about the Channeled Scablands of Washington State?
It is a long and distinguished list, but there is no science there. Rather it is an attempt to validate a narrow reading of the bible in spite of science!
Creationism and ID are not "Young Earth." Nor do either necessarily come from "a narrow reading of the bible." You do your position no favor by misrepresenting that of your opponents.