As an aspiring historian, I find it necessary to make some comments on Charlie Manson's post.

"Some of those theories however are quite flawed for determining the age of earth. Carbon dating is probably their most useful tool for this. However, carbon dating itself isn't accurate, you can use this particular method to determine the date of; for example, a clay pot that was dated from the Egyptian period of 50bce, but because of the material itself would date the clay content to be about 900bce. Same can be said for many material, because of this, it's impossible to apply this to any earthly material. As they all give varying dates.
Because of the incontinence in Carbon dating, scientists have used the matter from the moon to try and approximate the date of the earth. Using the same method, Carbon dating, which again is flawed for the same reason. However, there is a greater problem with this, this doesn't accurately measure the date of the earth, because of the fact that it's not from the Earth."

Carbon dating is not even used to determine the age of the planet, all it can do is date when a living organism stopped living. This implies that when remains are found (coal should be theiretically possible) it can be determined when it stopped being a living organism. This implies that objects from the moon can not possibly be dated with carbon dating. What he claims here is thus utter bollocks. Although it can indeed be used to determine the age of certain geological layers, it's impossible to use it to date the earth.
Same goes for the "clay pot" example. It's bollocks. Terracotta is dated by a technique of wich I don't know the name in english, but it involves heating it. I have to add that carbon dating is relatively speaking very exact (it can date stuff to 30 years exact) .. For older materials as the carbon procedure allows, there are other similar tests based on other materials (I can't remember which ones at the moment though; I can look them up if you like).