You mean like your unfounded, unevidenced and unbelievable conjecture that the 'Flood' makes carbon dating meaningless?
I don't think so. You see, carbon dating is verified and calibrated by dendrochronology, varves and ice cores, all of which I might add are independent but correlate to a high degree.
You make an obviously biased claim that carbon dating is in error because it is conjecture, yet your basis for doing so is an even bigger conjecture.
Sorry, but scientifically examined physical evidence trumps your wishful thinking.
"All one needs to know about evolution is its presuppositions, since at that point, we are no longer dealing with science, we are dealing with a religion, based on faith.
Unfortunately for your group of anti-evolutionists, the fields related to Cosmology, Astrophysics, Physics, Geology, Geophysics and a number of others I have probably missed, have determined the age of the Earth and the Universe independently from the needs and desires of Evolutionary scientists. The age of the Earth was known to be much older than 6,000-10,000 years, decades before Darwin, through a lot of intensive and dedicated hard scientific work, discovered one of the most important mechanisms of Evolution.
"Evolution is a myth cloaking itself with scientific jargon.
The scientists follow the well established and tested procedures and processes of science. If you care to dispute that, show us you understand the difference between science and myth.
I see you have quoted Walt Brown. Did Brown include any data, analysis numbers and backing cites for his rambling or are you just working from his rhetoric?
If I remember correctly, Walt Brown also claims the the asteroids are a result of the Flood. If my memory is correct and his math is so poor he doesn't understand the impossibility of this then it would be prudent to question all of his work based on math.
If Brown has no math worth considering then he has nothing but polemic rhetoric which in the world of science is worse than useless.
If the Flood was real then it would affect dating.
So the evolutionists have to disregard that issue and assume their own long date paradigm.
As for your ad hominem against Dr. Brown, that is typical evolutionist methodology.
Brown isn't the only Creationist who states this.
But the idea put forth by Evolutionist that our current Universe is based on an 'alternative Universe' is suppose to be 'good science'!