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.

Girls who like chatting on skype - Dating vs carbon

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.

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,[8] points out that there are other large-scale trends in the rocks that have nothing to do with radioactive decay.

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.

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.

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.

People wonder how millions of years could be squeezed into the biblical account of history. Christians, by definition, take the statements of Jesus Christ seriously.

It cannot be used to date volcanic rocks, for example.