THe first article is pretty dishonest. It asserts that radiocarbon dating can't be calibrated outside the range of recorded history - when that work has been done. In fact we have good calibrations for over 10,000 years (dendrochronology) and reasonable results for over 40,000 years (other methods esuch as the varves in Lake Suigetsu). Both compare radiocarbon against an independant clock.
Eugene Jenkins starts off by ingoring the history of dating - perhaps he doesn't know what he is talking about or perhaps he misrepresents the facts. The truth is that the Earth was determined to be older than a literal reliance on the Biblical chronologies allowed BEFORE evoltuion was formulated, from geology.
Reynolds is WRONG to claim that it is assumed that the radiocarbon contnet of the atmosphere was always constant. In fact we know that it HAS varied. So in fact scientists do not make this assumption - they know that it is false.
THer probable reason is that Reyonolds is relying on creationist sources. Reynolds quote Tohompson as claimign that there are reliable methods of determining the gar of the Earth that show it to be young and that they are left out of the textbooks because they agree with Thompson. That is an outrageous falsehood. If you disagree find just one mreliable method that shows that the Earth must be young.
Then we have the usual "circularity" falsehood - "the fossils date the rocks and the rocks date the fossils". Anyone who knows even the basics of geology knows that that one isn't true.
Then we have the usual misuse of carbon dating which ignores the limits of the method and declares that since it gives the results you would expect from such misuse it doesn't work.
I'd say that those articles do a better job of showing the flaws in creationism than anything else.
™ Version 4.2