Potassium argon dating vs carbon dating
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.Creationist researchers have suggested that dates of 35,000 - 45,000 years should be re-calibrated to the biblical date of the flood. 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. Also, volcanoes emit much COC.
It makes no sense at all if man appeared at the end of billions of years.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.One rare form has atoms that are 14 times as heavy as hydrogen atoms: carbon-14, or C ratio gets smaller.However, even with such historical calibration, archaeologists do not regard C produced and therefore dating the system.The amount of cosmic rays reaching the Earth varies with the sun's activity, and with the Earth's passage through magnetic clouds as the solar system travels around the Milky Way galaxy.
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.