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.
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.
Geologist John Woodmorappe, in his devastating critique of radioactive dating, points out that there are other large-scale trends in the rocks that have nothing to do with radioactive decay.
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.
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 cannot be used to date volcanic rocks, for example.
The rate of decay of N in 5,730 years (plus or minus 40 years).
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.
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.