It is a similar principle, but the materials used are far more accurate over millions and billions of years, whereas carbon dating is limited to around 70,000 years.
quoting below from http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/why-christians-shouldnt-accept-millions:
Radiometric dating methods do not prove millions of years. Radiometric dating was not developed until the early twentieth century, by which time virtually the whole world had already accepted the millions of years. For many years creation scientists have cited numerous examples in the published scientific literature of these dating methods clearly giving erroneous dates (e.g., a date of millions of years for lava flows that occurred in the past few hundred years or even decades). In recent years creationists in the RATE project have done experimental, theoretical, and field research to uncover more such evidence (e.g., diamonds and coal, which the evolutionists say are millions of years old, were dated by carbon-14 to be only thousands of years old) and to show that decay rates were orders of magnitude faster in the past.
why would you use carbon-14 to test diamonds and the like? I thought it only worked on organic materials that were only a few thousand years old. right?
Read what we were talking about before you post please.
Interesting sites FireflyIV. Seems like the person who wrote the second one was as biased as the Creationists he was trying to disprove. I would not trust someone like that, because people like him are likely to leave out some of the facts. I was especially hardened when I read his words "Creationists have no proof" repeatedly, which is an assumption. Although I don't believe that to be true, it also might be explained by the reason that God created things already in motion, thus there cannot be proof. Sorry but I also chuckled at the words in the second sentence "This conclusion was based upon carefully designed and conducted experiments". Makes me suspicious, lol. He also "disproves" some ridiculous creationist "roofs" which obviously made by uneducated and desperate people. He lists so many faults of creationists that I find in many evolutionists. I'm sorry, but seriously, I don't find any of it "enlightening".
Another note, I find radiometric dating an unreliable and dumb concept in itself. In general, heavier isotopes and elements are naturally fewer in number that lighter ones. If this is so, then when a rock was formed from lava, it easily could have already contained more of a daughter element than whatever you are using as a dating element. According to your big bang theory, heavier elements were formed after the more abundant lighter elements. If a heavier isotopes were formed after a daughter products, doesn't that seem absurd to use the daughter products as proof for the age of something? Right?
Sorry, I misunderstood what you were referring to. In respose to you question: Carbon-14 dating should work for everything with carbon. I don't see why it would work on an animal and not a rock.
With the tests didn't they test live dolphin and it said it was like a million years old?
yes...and they tested an Allosaurus bone and the results were that it was between 9,830 and 16,340 years old. Here's where I got that The problem is that people don't use carbon dating to find out how old the earth is.
