Could this be a clue that radioisotope “clocks” might have “ticked” at different rates in the past, and that this variation in “ticking” is different for different radioisotopes?
If so, this would explain the discrepancy between the radiocarbon method and other radioisotope techniques.
And 4,500 years is less than one radiocarbon half-life, so from Figure 2 we might expect 4,500-year-old samples to have C found within organic samples thought to date from the time of the Flood is generally only about 0.1 to 0.5 p MC.
From Figure 1, a value of 0.098 ≈ 0.1 p MC corresponds to 10 half-lives, or about 57,000 years.
Of course, he would realize that this age was nonsense, because he saw the fresh carcass.
In principle, this decay rate may be used to “date” the time since an organism’s death.
But the calculated dates will only be accurate if the assumptions behind the method are correct.
When today’s rates are used to calculate ages from certain radioisotope ratios, the results indicate that billions of years’ worth of nuclear decay of the heavier radioisotopes has occurred.
But there is evidence that this decay occurred in accelerated “spurts,” Why the High Radiocarbon Age Estimates?