Radioactive dating radiometric
That is, they take up less than would be expected and so they test older than they really are.Furthermore, different types of plants discriminate differently.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.When a “date” differs from that expected, researchers readily invent excuses for rejecting the result.The common application of such posterior reasoning shows that radiometric dating has serious problems.It does not give dates of millions of years and when corrected properly fits well with the biblical flood.There are various other radiometric dating methods used today to give ages of millions or billions of years for rocks.
One rare form has atoms that are 14 times as heavy as hydrogen atoms: carbon-14, or C ratio gets smaller.
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. 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.
The strength of the Earth's magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere.