In summary, the carbon-14 method, when corrected for the effects of the flood, can give useful results, but needs to be applied carefully.
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.
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.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.Clearly, such huge time periods cannot be fitted into the Bible without compromising what the Bible says about the goodness of God and the origin of sin, death and suffering—the reason Jesus came into the world (See Six Days? He said, This only makes sense with a time-line beginning with the creation week thousands of years ago.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.When a “date” differs from that expected, researchers readily invent excuses for rejecting the result.
The isotope concentrations can be measured very accurately, but isotope concentrations are not dates.