Er - hang on Pete. Your idea is that the things are not more than 6,000 years old so radio carbon dating is wrong? What is wrong about it? Radio carbon dating is error prone for things over 6,000 years old but accurate on the newer ones? Or the things are younger than their radio carbon date because your god made it so? Or is there a third option that I have missed? (Oh, I have it - you are a wind-up).