Carbon dating is a flawed process
And this big sequence is then used to 'correct' C14 dates. (3.) Even if the rate of decay is constant, without a knowledge of the exact ratio of C12 to C14 in the initial sample, the dating technique is still subject to question.(4.) Traditional 14C testing assumes equilibrium in the rate of formation and the rate of decay.The argument may be compared to filling a barrel which has numerous small holes in its sides.We stick the garden hose in and turn it on full blast.In fact, 14C is forming FASTER than the observed decay rate.
This argument was popularized by Henry Morris (1974, p.164), who used some calculations done in 1968 by Melvin Cook to get the 10,000-year figure. Whitelaw, using a greater ratio of carbon-14 production to decay, concluded that only 5000 years passed since carbon-14 started forming in the atmosphere!
(They conveniently forget to mention that the tree ring chronology was arranged by C14 dating.
The scientists who were trying to build the chronology found the tree rings so ambiguous that they could not decide which rings matched which (using the bristlecone pine).
Libby, the discoverer of the C14 dating method, was very disappointed with this problem.
He understood that archaeological artifacts were readily available.
Despite this she continually uses the c14 dates to create 'absolute' chronologies.