I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say that carbon dating is not accurate at dates longer than a few thousand years, but there are so many other observable things which point to billions of years of time rather than a few thousand.As Einstein said "A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be." Every time you try to debunk a dating method by using a reference to the flood, I get the impression that you are looking for what you think should be, rather than what is.Examples: For all of these, and more, reasons, calibration is needed in C-14 dating.
I read the scientific article on the carbon dating done on the Jericho site written by Bruins and Van Der Plicht.
When I did the math from their results section of the YBP, they all turned out to be right around the year 1400 .
However, I will stand by my statement with this defense: First, we do not need changing decay rates to explain 14C dating.
There are enough uncertainties in the physical history of earth to throw great uncertainty on the early dates.
Dendrochronology is used to determine variations in the C14/C12 ratio, but dendrochronology has assumptions that are not always valid (see bristlecone pine dating). Yes, a decreasing magnetic field strength would allow for more cosmic rays to enter the atmosphere over time, which would induce increased rates of 14C production and throw off any ancient measurement with respect to modern values.
They even miss the flood when it is staring them in the face.
In the end, though, it seems to me there is little debate about the rate of decay in the historical era.
Most of the debate centers around Creation Week and the Flood, so I do not think my statement was made in error, at least in the context of what is being discussed.
Third, some creationists like the members of the RATE group theorize there was a pulse of accelerated radioactive decay around the time of the Flood, but this would not apply to the post-Flood era.
Fourth, while it is true that we cannot know the past (this is the great limitation of experimental science), it is sometimes convenient to use the opposition's numbers against them.
If you read articles like [note: link deleted as per our fedback rules], it is clear that the Egyptian dates don't always follow the dig.