Is carbon dating accuracy
The flood buried a huge amount of carbon, which became coal, oil, etc., lowering the total C ratio in plants/animals/the atmosphere before the flood had to be lower than what it is now.
We will deal with carbon dating first and then with the other dating methods.
Carbon has unique properties that are essential for life on Earth.
These techniques are applied to igneous rocks, and are normally seen as giving the time since solidification.
The isotope concentrations can be measured very accurately, but isotope concentrations are not dates.
Unless this effect (which is additional to the magnetic field issue just discussed) were corrected for, carbon dating of fossils formed in the flood would give ages much older than the true ages.
It cannot be used to date volcanic rocks, for example.The rate of decay of N in 5,730 years (plus or minus 40 years).
For example, potassium-40 decays to argon-40; uranium-238 decays to lead-206 via other elements like radium; uranium-235 decays to lead-207; rubidium-87 decays to strontium-87; etc.Since the flood was accompanied by much volcanism (see Noah's Flood…, How did animals get from the Ark to isolated places? ), fossils formed in the early post-flood period would give radiocarbon ages older than they really are.In summary, the carbon-14 method, when corrected for the effects of the flood, can give useful results, but needs to be applied carefully.This is the “half-life.” So, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years.Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable C.Also, the Genesis flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance.