Carbon Dating
Is carbon dating accurate? Only to a certain extent. In order for carbon dating to be accurate, we must know what the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 was in the environment in which our specimen lived during its lifetime. Unfortunately the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 has yet to reach a state of equilibrium in our atmosphere; there is more carbon-14 in the air today than there was thousands of years ago. Furthermore, the ratio is known to fluctuate significantly over relatively short periods of time (e.g. during the industrial revolution more carbon-12 was being produced offsetting the ratio a bit).

Carbon dating is somewhat accurate because we are able to determine what the ratio was in the unobservable past to a certain extent. By taking a carboniferous specimen of known age (that is, a specimen which we are able to date with reasonable certainty through some archaeological means), scientists are able to determine what the ratio was during a specimen's lifetime. They are then able to calibrate the carbon dating method to produce fairly accurate results. Carbon dating is thus accurate within the timeframe set by other archaeological dating techniques. Unfortunately, we aren't able to reliably date artifacts beyond several thousand years. Scientists have tried to extend confidence in the carbon dating method further back in time by calibrating the method using tree ring dating. Unfortunately, tree ring dating is itself not entirely reliable, especially the "long chronology" employed to calibrate the carbon dating method. The result is that carbon dating is accurate for only a few thousand years. Anything beyond that is questionable. This fact is born out in how carbon dating results are used by scientists in the scientific literature. Many scientists will use carbon dating test results to back up their position if the results agree with their preconceived theories. But if the carbon dating results actually conflict with their ideas, they aren't too concerned. "This attitude is clearly reflected in a regrettably common practice: when a radiocarbon date agrees with the expectations of the excavator it appears in the main text of the site report; if it is slightly discrepant it is relegated to a footnote; if it seriously conflicts it is left out altogether." (Peter James, et al. (I. J. Thorpe, Nikos Kokkinos, Robert Morkot and John Frankish), Preface to Centuries of Darkness, 1991)

So, is carbon dating accurate? It is for specimens which only date back a few thousand years. Anything beyond that is problematic and highly doubtful. [http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/is-carbon-dating-accurate-faq.htm - would have been nice if he cited this source!!]

If you accept the Flood Theory then you know that anything before the flood was contaminated and cannot be accurately carbon dated. Austin believes that one of the ways that life was reduced in years and size was the altering of the atmosphere by the hand of God.

There are many details that scientist assume were present at any given time. You must remember they are only guessing; scientist give off an illusion of knowledge as if it were true. If you say something long enough and loud enough, society will accept it as truth whether it is or not.

Do not accept the solution, carbon dating has a 10,000 year limit anything after that can be highly inaccurate.

To be honest, I barely understand the technical aspects of Carbon Dating. But I have a hard time believing ",,,scientist give off an illusion of knowledge as if it were true." With that said some info foound on Carbon Dating.

Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods 
 Fossils provide a record of the history of life. 
 Millions of fossils have been discovered. 
 Some skeptics believe that all fossils are the same age. 
Rejecting fossil data cannot be supported by proof.
Fossil hunting began by accident in England around 1800. 
Stratigraphy, the study of rock layers, led to paleontology, the study of fossils. 
Fossils prove that humans did not exist alongside dinosaurs. 
Scientists now use phylogeny, mathematics, and other computations to date fossils.
Paleontologists now apply sophisticated mathematical techniques to assess the relative quality of particular fossil successions, as well as the entire fossil record. These demonstrate that, of course, we do not know everything (and clearly never will), but we know enough. Today, innovative techniques provide further confirmation and understanding of the history of life. Biologists actually have at their disposal several independent ways of looking at the history of life - not only from the order of fossils in the rocks, but also through phylogenetic trees.
Fossils may be dated by calculating the rate of decay of certain elements.  
Older fossils cannot be dated by carbon-14 methods and require radiometric dating.
The best-known absolute dating technique is carbon-14 dating, which archaeologists prefer to use. However, the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, so the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years. Radiometric dating involves the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Subtle differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes can give good dates for rocks of any age.
Scientists can check their accuracy by using different isotopes. 
There is only a 1% chance of error with current dating technology. 
Conclusion: The strict rules of the scientific method ensure the accuracy of fossil dating.
The fossil record is fundamental to an understanding of evolution. Fossils document the order of appearance of groups and they tell us about some of the amazing plants and animals that died out long ago. Fossils can also show us how major crises, such as mass extinctions, happened, and how life recovered after them. If the fossils, or the dating of the fossils, could be shown to be inaccurate, all such information would have to be rejected as unsafe. Geologists and paleontologists are highly self-critical, and they have worried for decades about these issues. Repeated, and tough, regimes of testing have confirmed the broad accuracy of the fossils and their dating, so we can read the history of life from the rocks with confidence.
Unlike the Creationist/Intelligent Design theory, science never stops advancing. Creation/ID theory has never changed, the premises and theory are stagnant,,,God created,,,Flood destroyed,,,hence fossils all the same age. Any new discoveries have to fit this paradigm regardless of what science may say. On the other hand science changes the premises and modifies their theories as new evidence presents itself.

Archaeological 'Time Machine' Greatly Improves Accuracy of Early Radiocarbon Dating

The "flaws" that Austin puts forth, just based on a quick exploration, are or appear to be well considered. Something he seems to not mention in his critique.

How Carbon-14 Dating Works