Creation science II

Equivocating this way only makes discussion meaningless or impossible. You know there is a widely accepted meaning to "creation science". It does not include those who believe there is a natural cause of the formation of what we call the universe.In fact, it doesn't include the vast majority of Christians either. If you want to use the term as you are using it then you are pretty much alone and no one will know what you are talking about.If you use CS as you are then what do we call the fundamentalists who want the Bible taught in public schools and are willing to lie to get by constitutional limits?

You've already been given one reason why this isn't good science (it is arguable that it is science).They have not taken into account all known processes. C14 can be formed in situ if the material is near radioactive ores. Interestingly this can create amounts enough to bring measured age within the most extreme limits of carbon dating.Unless this is accounted for the results can not be taken as you source suggests.Fortunately people who actually know how to use carbon dating aren't so foolish as those of your source. They do not attempt to use it when it is out of it's range of applicability. Doing so it, at best, bad science, and, at worst not science at all but rather is dishonesty.

Where exactly is the accusation of lying?

So CS says life was created suddenly in a number of distinct forms? Yes?Does it say if this happened at one period of time or at several different times?