Wow that is quite a list of questions.
“What is the source of the radioactive carbon in the living organisms?”
C14 is created in the atmosphere, combines with oxygen to create C02. Plants take in the CO2 and animals and humans eat the plants.
“What happens after the organism’s death?”
It stops taking in C14 and the C14 in it begins to decay.
“What is the C-14’s half life?”
the current half life of C14 is 5730 years
“What can be the practical use of this?”
I am not sure I understand the question. Obviously you think that this can be used to accurately date fossils and elements like diamonds.
“What is the time frame for possible dating using this isotope?” Presumably you can’t date anything over 50,000 or so years using C14.
“How does the accuracy correlate with numbers obtained using other methods?” I don’t think it is accurate. Explaination below.
Dating of any kind presumes things about the past that cannot be proven. You have to assume the amount of carbon that is present in the organism when it died. Obviously when the earth was covered all over with green vegetation the earth would have had ALOT more C14 in it than it does today.
You have to assume that the rate of decay has been constant (uniformitarian views have been long disproven). Dating has yielded LOTS of unpredicatable/incorrect results in rocks with KNOWN ages but we “ignorants” are supposed to believe that rocks of unknown ages can be dated accurately. What about fossils that are supposedly millions of years old that still have carbon 14 in them? That shouldn’t be there! Evolutionist start with a presupposition. Creationist start with a presupposition. Don’t call me ignorant because I don’t believe your presuppostion. I understand your position firmly. I just don’t agree with it. .
With the exception of small deviations in reactions involving electron capture by the nucleus, the constants are constants. That's a perfect example of the quality of "creationist" science. We know that the laws of exponential decay apply to radioactive decay of unstable isotopes. We know why. Yet you people look for any semblance of an argument to create entirely new science for the sole purpose of making it agree not with the observed (and mathematically justified) phenomena, but with your interpretation of the Bible...