I have. Extensively. Its nonsense based on belief and wishful thinking. In many cases the claims made by creationists are based on silly errors due to their lack of understanding of science and how it works. Here is a classic example:
Even if this texts is right, it is not proving anything in favor or against the radiocarbon method. while it concentrates in the very last bit of the creationist text quoted there, it ignores the point that they make, which is that the ratio between c-12 and c-14 has been changing and increasing the proportion of c-14, assuming that the ratio has been relatively constant over the last thousands of years causes the samples to appear much older than they really are, what you have to say about that?
The scientific model surrounding radiocarbon dating is the standard, the norm, the approach accepted worldwide. It has been researched for over 50 years and the scientific community is in agreement on its methods, uses, and accuracy. Tens of thousands of articles have been written about radiocarbon dating over the years, testing it and refining it.
Not everything that has been written agrees with that, and not all scientists agree, here's one example:
I read that article and that author was dishonest as well. One example from that article:
quote: Uniformitarianism assumes that the vast amount of geological change recorded in the rocks is the product of slow and uniform processes operating over an immense span of time, as opposed to a global cataclysm of the type described in the Bible and other ancient texts.
Nope. Uniformatarianism does not 'assume' that at all.
From GARY, M., MACAFEE R (JR), and WOLF, C. L. (eds), 1977. Glossary of Geology. American Geological Institute:
(a) The fundamental principle or doctrine that geological processes and natural laws now operating to the earth’s crust have acted in the same regular manner and with the essentially the same intensity throughout geologic time. And that past geologic events can be explained by phenomena and forces observable today; the classic concept that “the present is the key to the past”. The doctrine does not imply that any change has a uniform rate, and does not exclude minor catastrophies.; The term was originated by Lyell (1830), who applied it to a concept by Hutton (1788). Cf. catastrophism. Syn: actualism: principle of uniformity.
(b) The logic and method by which geologists attempt to reconstruct the past using the principle of uniformitarianism.
So, it seems as if the term uniformatarianism refers to uniformity in the array of processes operating on the Earth across time. Not what Baumgardner claimed it is. He told an untruth.
The result is that both references to creationist websites given so far in this thread indicate that those creationists tried to mislead people.
I've seen many creationist 'articles' in my lifetime. I've never seen one where creationists are not very, very economical with the truth. You always find at least one falsehood.
I don’t see any dishonesty in Baumgardner’s definition on uniformitarianism: “the vast amount of geological change recorded in the rocks is the product of slow and uniform processes operating over an immense span of time”, it’s pretty much the same as the one presented by Gary, Macafee and Wolf: “geological processes and natural laws now operating to the earth’s crust have acted in the same regular manner and with the essentially the same intensity throughout geologic time. And that past geologic events can be explained by phenomena and forces observable today”. Yeah, they also add: “The doctrine does not imply that any change has a uniform rate, and does not exclude minor catastrophies”, but Baumgardner is not implying otherwise, in fact Gary et al are implying that changes not happening at an uniform rate and “minor catastrophies” aren’t relevant enough to affect the uniformitarian principle that “past geologic events can be explained by phenomena and forces observable today”.
Opposite to that, Baumgardner and other creationists claim that you cannot use uniformitarianism because there is a global catastrophy in the way, namely, the biblical flood. This would have affected the Earth in a way that present events cannot be extrapolated to the past, and that includes the rate of c-14 to c-12, which would have been so minimal that radiocarbon dates for pre-flood samples show infinite or tents of thousand year old dates.
Now it appears that it is possible to calibrate radiocarbon dates by comparing with things of “known” age, like tree rings, varves, etc, but how can we really “know” the age of things that are supposed to be tents of thousand years old?. I think the inaccuracy of radiocarbon dating is being calibrated with equally inaccurate stuff, I will have a look at this calibration method and will be back to discuss.