This will be controversial and I'm open to discussion about this. In an article about the Grand Canyon, Snellings trys to prove that all radiometric dating is flawed but only ends up proving that he deliberately used bad methods.
for those interested here's why what Snellings did was wrong:
and here's the original article:
and here's his reply to a concerned writer:
In short he sent "whole rock" samples of a metamorphic rock - one that has been heated previously in the past at an unknown time - and had them tested using different methods and got different dates. But here's why. He selected a rock with many complexities - Metamophorpic - sent the wrong sample sizes -whole rock - used the wrong method - Potasium-Argon - and stated that he should have gotten good results; but when you put bad garbage in, you should expect bad garbage out.
the most telling quote:
"All the problems with the different radioisotope systems C.H. has highlighted have already been extensively reported in my chapter in the first volume of the Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) project published in 2000 and referenced in the Creation article, and yes, all these problems are reported in the standard textbooks in geochronology. The article was designed to corroborate these problems, and it did. And I agree with C.H. that none of these radioisotope systems are reliable in dating these rocks, which was the conclusion of the article. "
But here's the thing, if I try to hammer a screw into a piece of wood and then expose the problems but don't inform the readers that I used a hammer instead of a screwdriver, then I'm decieving everyone, especially if I then try to prove that carpentry is flawed.