If Radio-metric dating and Carbon dating are used to check age, were there no carbon before earth was formed?

<<If Radio-metric dating and Carbon dating are used to check age, were there no carbon before earth was formed?>>

Such a conclusion wouldn't be in the least logical.

<<Now what I want to know is, was there carbon in those gasses and if so, could the dating not be wrong that they actually pick up the date when it was still part of the gas and not when earth was formed?>>

Carbon-dating has got no connection whatsoever with dating the age of the Earth, at least, not beyond fifty thousand years at the absolute most. The carbon involved is C-14, not any old carbon, and that comes supplied via cosmic rays doing groovy things to the atmosphere. The only things that can be sensibly carbon-dated are bits of dead, terrestrial organisms that imbibed that C-14 directly and only from the atmosphere. It's got nothing to do with any carbon that may or may not have been around 4.6 billion years ago. Any C-14 from that time ceased being measurably radioactive well over 4.5 billion years ago.

Update

<<And radiometric dating? You answered only carbon dating.>>

Carbon isn't relevant to other forms of radiometric dating, and you only asked about the presence of carbon.

carbon is one of the more common elements because it is a stable endproduct of basic fusion in the sun (any old star, for the most part). shove three heliums together and you get carbon.

All of the various elements are present in proportions that are releated to this basic idea of hydrogens shoving together to make helium, then helium shoving together to make higher elements, and the various product elements shoving together to make newer, higher number elements. Iron is the end of the basic stage of this fusion process.

Now, carbon exists primarily as carbon 12. there is some secondary carbon 13. Both are carbon, and both are stable and so have basically been around in the quantities we now find since the formation of the earth. There is effectively no fusion reaction occurring on earth to produce more carbon 12 or carbon 13.

Carbon 14, the form of carbon that is used for dating, is produced by a nuclear reaction in the atmosphere from interaction of cosmic particles with nitrogen. This form of carbon (C14) is not stable and will eventually, and relatively quickly, return back into nitrogen by radioactive decay.

The only reason that carbon dating is useful is that there is a constant production of small amounts of carbon 14 in the atmosphere. when things (life forms) form from carbon in the atmosphere, they take up a small amount of this C14. When they die, they no longer take up carbon from the atmosphere, so slowly as time passes, the carbon 14 decays back into nitrogen. It is this process that we can meaure, that we use to date something, based on how much of the original carbon 14 in the thing is still there.

So, carbon dating will not give us an error because of residual carbon from way back in time.

Other radiogenic isotopes (forms of elements that decay) also exist, and many are so slowly decaying that the exist from the beginning, from their formation in stars. When we measure something for dating, the date we get is the date of formation of the mineral or rock, because that is when the system became isolated from the bulk mass.

It is possible to get an erroneaous date if certain conditions are not satisfied. But if the system behaves as closed (no mixing with the outside), radiometric age dating is very much possible and useful. To say more requires some hours of teaching to explain the how and why and how to use the data.

I think people misuse the Bible to come up with dates. Then when scientific evidence proves their flawed conclusion wrong, many claim that the evidence is wrong. Nowhere does the Bible say the Earth is 6,000 - 7,000 years old.