[PatrickHenry]

I've found his reply: What about carbon dating? By Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland. A sample:

In summary, the carbon-14 method, when corrected for the effects of the flood, can give useful results, but needs to be applied carefully. It does not give dates of millions of years and when corrected properly fits well with the biblical flood.

How many howlers can you find in those two sentences?

[longshadow]

Festival of Howlers & Trolls placemarker

[PatrickHenry]

I couldn't wait. I added this one to The List-O-Links, in the section titled: THIS IS YOUR BRAIN ON CREATIONISM:

Post 315 by Nathan Zachary on 29 Sep 05 . There is no REAL PHYSICAL FOSSIL RECORD.

[Right Wing Professor]

In summary, the carbon-14 method, when corrected for the effects of the flood, can give useful results, but needs to be applied carefully. It does not give dates of millions of years and when corrected properly fits well with the biblical flood.

What's truly astonishing is that there are several true statements in it. It can give useful results. It needs to be applied carefully. It does not give dates of millions of years.

[Doctor Stochastic]

In summary, the carbon-14 method, when corrected for the effects of the flood...

Well, it's particularly easy to correct for The Flood. An affine transformation yields the most reliable results:

T_correct = A * T_measured + B

where A=1 and B=0 as determined by examining antediluvian pine cones.