You'll probably find answers here
An Index to Creationist Claims
Rather than just posting a bare link I decided to look into the (less common) atmospheric C14 claim.
This is what I found:
http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v4i10f.htm
quote:
We have to assume that the average amount of radiation striking the atmosphere is constant, at least over a period of thousands of years. Our justification for that assumption is that most
of the radiation comes from the sun, and the sun has been shining with apparently constant brightness for the last few thousand years of human history.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. C14 is created by cosmic rays which do not come from the sun. We do not have to assume that the rate of creation is constant because we can test samples of known age (as has been done - and the article later admits). Worse, from the industrial revolution we have been pumping increasing amounts of old carbon into the atmosphere (Significant effects start to appear ~1890) by burning fossil fuels - but against that nuclear detonations have since created extra C14.
See
radiocarbon WEB-info
Unfortunately there is no explanation of how the C14 ratio "proves" that the Earth is young. We do however find this:
quote:
Suppose there had been a major atmospheric disturbance, such as the one described in the flood myths of many diverse cultures about 4,000 years ago. That’s roughly one-half of the 8,267 year 14C decay time constant, so the ratio of 14C to 12C would still be changing today.
How exactly a Flood would change the atmosphere in this respect is not explained. It is hardly an obvious effect - and we would want the existence of the effect confirmed by "before" and "after" samples. Except there are no such samples and therefore no direct evidence of the supposed effect at all. Moreover the absence of clear evidence for such a flood and the major problems such an idea faces make it a less than pluasible explanation even if there was a clear link. Especially where there are other reasons why the ratio could be changing (ongoing industrial activity, changes cosmic ray flux and the fading after-effects of nuclear detonations)
Yet they call actual scientific explanations based on real measurements and known mechanisms "fanciful and imaginative"
The author, by the way, is not a scientist - having a degree in Electrical Engineering with experience in circuit design and programming.
http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/index.htm
™ Version 4.2