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.

Creationist researchers have suggested that dates of 35,000 - 45,000 years should be re-calibrated to the biblical date of the flood.[6] Such a re-calibration makes sense of anomalous data from carbon dating—for example, very discordant “dates” for different parts of a frozen musk ox carcass from Alaska and an inordinately slow rate of accumulation of ground sloth dung pellets in the older layers of a cave where the layers were carbon dated.[7] Also, volcanoes emit much COC.

Familiar to us as the black substance in charred wood, as diamonds, and the graphite in “lead” pencils, carbon comes in several forms, or isotopes.

creation dating-67

Also, the Genesis flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance.

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.

This also has to be corrected for.[2] Second, the ratio of C in the atmosphere at that time to be estimated, and so partial calibration of the “clock” is possible.

Accordingly, carbon dating carefully applied to items from historical times can be useful.

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.

Overall, the energy of the Earth's magnetic field has been decreasing,[5] so more C is being produced now than in the past.

This will make old things look older than they really are.

C) dating usually want to know about the radiometric[1] dating methods that are claimed to give millions and billions of years—carbon dating can only give thousands of years.