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.
The strength of the Earth's magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere.
These techniques, unlike carbon dating, mostly use the relative concentrations of parent and daughter products in radioactive decay chains.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.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.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.Overall, the energy of the Earth's magnetic field has been decreasing, so more C is being produced now than in the past.This will make old things look older than they really are.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.To derive ages from such measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made such as: There is plenty of evidence that the radioisotope dating systems are not the infallible techniques many think, and that they are not measuring millions of years. For example, deeper rocks often tend to give older “ages.” Creationists agree that the deeper rocks are generally older, but not by millions of years.