I just want to point out that there isn't enough water on the planet to completely cover every inch of land
theres no reason to discount the theory of a massive underground resivour of some sort, which would also explain the flaws in carbon dating.
Figure 147: Increasing Amounts of Carbon-14. Radiocarbon dating requires knowing the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere when the
organic matter being dated was part of a living organism. The assumption (shown in red), which few realize is being made, is that this ratio has
always been what it was before the industrial revolution6-about one carbon-14 atom for every trillion carbon-12 atoms. Willard Libby, who received a
Nobel Prize for developing this technique, conducted tests in 1950 which showed more carbon-14 forming than decaying. Therefore, the amount of
carbon-14 and the ratio must be increasing. He ignored his test results, because he believed the earth must be more than 20,000 -30,000 years old, in
which case the amount of carbon-14 must have had time to reach equilibrium and be constant.3 In 1977, Melvin Cook did similar, but more precise, tests
which showed that the ratio was definitely increasing, even faster than Libby’s test indicated.
Today, carbon-14 forms in the upper atmosphere at the rate of 21 pounds a year, but in 5,730 years, half of it decays. Therefore, carbon-14 would
normally increase from the time of the creation, as shown by the blue line. Before the flood, the blue line levels off as the concentration of
carbon-14 in the atmosphere approaches equilibrium-where the amount forming balances the amount decaying. Earth’s lush forests had so much carbon that
the equilibrium level was much lower than today. Those forests, ripped up and buried during the flood, became our coal, oil, and methane deposits.
During the flood, carbon-12 released from the subterranean water chamber diluted the carbon-14 in the atmosphere and oceans even more. (Carbon-14
could not have formed in this chamber, because it was shielded from the cosmic radiation that produces carbon-14.) If one thought the C-14/C-12 ratio
had always been what it is today, he would erroneously conclude that the reduced carbon-14 meant much time had passed. Instead, less carbon-14 was in
the organism when it died.
Radiocarbon dates less than 3,500 years old are probably accurate. However, before accepting any radiocarbon date, one should know how the technique
works, its limitations, and its assumptions. One limitation is that the radiocarbon technique dates only material that was once part of an animal or
plant, such as bones, flesh, or wood. It cannot date rocks directly. To understand the other capabilities and limitations of radiocarbon dating, we
must understand how it works and consider the flood.
Most carbon atoms weigh 12 atomic mass units. However, roughly one in a trillion carbon atoms weighs 14 atomic units. This carbon is called carbon-14.
It is also called radiocarbon because it is radioactive (but not dangerous). Half of it will decay in about 5,730 years to form nitrogen. Half of the
remainder will decay in another 5,730 years, and so on.
Cosmic radiation striking the upper atmosphere converts about 21 pounds of nitrogen each year into radiocarbon (carbon-14). Most carbon-14 quickly
combines with oxygen to form radioactive carbon dioxide, which then spreads throughout the atmosphere. Plants take in carbon dioxide, incorporating in
their tissues both carbon-14 (unstable) and normal carbon-12 (stable) in the same proportion as they occur in the atmosphere. Carbon-14 then moves up
the various food chains to enter animal tissue-again, in about the same ratio carbon-14 has with carbon-12 in the atmosphere.
When a living thing dies, its radiocarbon loss (decay) is no longer balanced by intake, so its radiocarbon steadily decreases with a half-life of
5,730 years. If we knew the amount of carbon-14 in an organism when it died, we could attempt to date the time of death. The key questions then are:
“Has the atmospheric ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 changed in the past, and if so, why and how much?” The assumption usually made, but rarely
acknowledged, is that the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere before the industrial revolution1 was always the same-about one in a
trillion. Actually, that ratio may have been quite different.
For example, a worldwide flood would uproot and bury preflood forests. Afterward, less carbon would be available from decaying vegetation to cycle
between living things and the atmosphere. With less carbon-12 to dilute the carbon-14 continually forming from nitrogen in the upper atmosphere, the
ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere would increase. If the atmosphere’s ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 has doubled since the flood and
we did not know it, radiocarbon ages of things living soon after the flood would appear to be one half-life (or 5,730 years) older than their true
ages. If that ratio quadrupled, organic remains would appear 11,460 (2 x 5,730) years older, etc. Consequently, a “radiocarbon year” would not
correspond to an actual year.
Therefore, the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 has, in general, been building up in the atmosphere since the flood. However, for the last 3,500 years,
the increase in the ratio would be extremely slight. As explained in Figure 147, recent measurements show this.3
Radiocarbon dating of vertical sequences of organic-rich layers at 714 locations worldwide has consistently shown a surprising result.4 Radiocarbon
ages do not increase steadily with depth, as one might expect. Instead, they increase at an accelerating rate. In other words, the concentration of
carbon-14 is unexpectedly low in the lower organic layers. As one moves to higher and higher layers, this concentration increases rapidly, just as we
would expect in the centuries after a worldwide flood.
Tree-ring dating allows us to infer how the atmospheric concentration of carbon-14 changed in the past. Some types of trees growing at high elevations
with a steady supply of moisture will reliably add only one ring each year. In other environments, multiple rings can be added in a year.5 A tree
ring’s thickness depends on the tree’s growing conditions, which vary from year to year. Some rings may even show frost or fire damage. By comparing
sequences of ring thicknesses in two different trees, a correspondence can sometimes be shown. Trees of the same species that simultaneously grew
within a few hundred miles of each other may have similar patterns. Trees of different species or trees growing in different environments have less
Claims are frequently made that wood growing today can be matched up with some scattered pieces of dead wood so that tree-ring counts can be extended
back more than 8,600 years. This may not be correct. These claimed “long chronologies” begin with either living trees or dead wood that can be
accurately dated by historical methods.7 This carries the chronology back perhaps 3,500 years. Then the more questionable links are established based
on the judgment of a tree-ring specialist. Sometimes “missing” rings are added.8 Each tree ring’s width varies greatly around its circumference. Also,
parts of a ring may be dead wood. Standard statistical techniques could establish how well the dozen supposedly overlapping tree-ring sequences fit.
However, tree-ring specialists have refused to subject their judgments to these statistical tests and would not release their data, so others can do
these statistical tests.9
Several laboratories in the world are now equipped to perform a much improved radiocarbon dating procedure. Using atomic accelerators, a specimen’s
carbon-14 atoms can now be actually counted, giving a more precise radiocarbon date with even smaller samples. The standard, but less accurate,
radiocarbon dating technique only estimates the rare disintegrations of carbon-14 atoms, which are sometimes confused with other types of
This new atomic accelerator technique has consistently detected at least small amounts of carbon-14 in every organic specimen-even materials that
evolutionists claim are millions of years old, such as coal. This small, consistent amount is found so often among various specimens that
contamination can probably be ruled out. Ancient human skeletons, when dated by this new “accelerator mass spectrometer” technique, give surprisingly
recent dates. In one study of eleven sets of ancient human bones, all were dated at about 5,000 radiocarbon years or less! 10
Radiocarbon dating of supposedly very ancient bones should provide valuable information. Why is such testing rare? Researchers naturally do not want
to waste money on a technique that destroys their specimen and provides no specific age. Therefore, most researchers do not radiocarbon date any
organic specimen they think is older than 100,000 years, even if it still contains carbon. All carbon-14 that was once in anything older than 100,000
radiocarbon years would have decayed; its age could not be determined. So, if a bone an evolutionist thinks is a million years old contains any
detectable carbon-14, the bone is probably less than 100,000 radiocarbon years. Furthermore, Figure 147, shows why those “radiocarbon years”
correspond to a much younger true age.
PREDICTION 36: Bones or other organic remains that contain enough carbon and are believed by evolutionists to be older than 100,000 years will be
shown to be relatively young in blind radiocarbon tests. This prediction has now been confirmed.11 (Blind tests are explained on page 81.)
Very precise measurements now show that most fossils-regardless of presumed “geologic age”-have roughly the same ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12.
(This includes fossil fuels: coal, oil, and methane.) Therefore, this former life must have been living at about the same time-less than 100,000 years
ago. Because almost all fossils are preserved in water deposited sediments, all this former life was probably buried in a fairly recent, gigantic
Radiocarbon dating is becoming increasingly important in interpreting the past. However, one must understand how it works and especially how a flood
affected radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon ages less than 3,500 years are probably accurate. Ages around 40,000 radiocarbon years, which are typical of
coal, probably have much younger true dates near the time of the flood, roughly 5,000 years ago.
(note: i dont completely agree with that article, but the main body is sound)