Carbon dating issues
Carbon dating makes an animal living 4 thousand years ago (when there was less atmospheric carbon) appear to have lived thousands of years before it actually did.
A great book on the flaws of dating methods is "Radioisotopes and the age of the earth" (edited by Larry Vardiman, Andrew Snelling, Eugene F. Published by Institute for Creation Research; December 2000) Dating methods are based on 3 unprovable and questionable assumptions: 1) That the rate of decay has been constant throughout time. That the isotope abundances in the specimen dated have not been altered during its history by addition or removal of either parent or daughter isotopes 3) That when the rock first formed it contained a known amount of daughter material ("Radioisotopes and the age of the earth" pg v) We must recognize that past processes may not be occurring at all today, and that some may have occurred at rates and intensities far different from similar processes today.
Consequently organisms living there dated by C14 give ages much older than their true age.
A lake Bonney seal known to have died only a few weeks before was carbon dated.
As far as your comments that 16,000 years is older than when God created the earth, we know that there is more carbon in the atmosphere than there was a thousand years ago. It is somewhat accurate back to a few thousand years, but carbon dating is not accurate past this. However, this does not mean that the earth is 30 thousand years old. Because of the earths declining magnetic field, more radiation (which forms C14) is allowed into the earths atmosphere.
So a date of 9,000 or 16,000 years is more likely to be less. Carbon dating is a good dating tool for some things that we know the relative date of. Willard Libby (December 17, 1908 September 8, 1980) and his colleagues discovered the technique of radiocarbon dating in 1949.
Let's say initially every radioactive element was "exploded" into existence from pre-existent elements.
None of these early faster half-lives would be the same as they are today.
The samples of bone were blind samples.""Of course carbon dating isn't going to work on your Allosaurus bone. So I would expect to get some weird number like 16,000 years if you carbon date a millions of years old fossil.As time progressed each would begin to acquire its slower modern-day stable half-life, but would they all acquire these stable rates in a uniformity which would keep them all in synchrony? If they did, all would give the same ages, you are right.Each would probably arrive at equilibrium at different times.( "Radioisotopes and the age of the earth" pg vii) To know if carbon dating is accurate, we would have to know how much carbon was in the atmosphere in the beginning, and also how long it has been increasing, or decreasing. It's like trying to figure out how long a candle has been burning, without knowing the rate at which it burns, or its original size.See my commentary on Genesis 3 verse 17 "..cursed is the ground for your sake" When this happened there was a burst of radioactity that made the rocks appear older than they were.