I do not believe that you understand my argument.

You are claiming that Carbon 14 is an accurate dating system for things thousands of year old, but not to date things millions of years old?

The scientists who use carbon dating say that it is accurate to about 68,000 years. 68,000 is more than 6,000. Its not that complex.

You argue in the same dishonest manner that Ken Ham does. You do not put forward a coherent theory consistent with the evidence. You put forward the assertion that it must be because the one small part of the Old Testament, you choose to take literally, in the way you choose to interpret it is the one true way things were until new evidence comes up and you have to reinterpret again. Mr. Ham takes it on faith that "the flood happened" (presumably as described in his "museum") But stated also that he is open to new data.

Here is a rebuttal point by point

1,theres a lot more time between your deep time and earliest possible radiocarbon dating, than between creation and earliest possible carbon14 detection.

There is about 60,000 years between the earliest possible radiocarbon dating and your latest possible age of the universe based on your estimate of the universe's age.

2,we don't know the amount of c14 at the beginning

We do know with some degree of accuracy the ratio of C14 to C12. and the rate at which it changes. That is all that we need to know.

3,we do not know if the exchange rate has been constant through time. in fact ,I think variation has been noted

You mean change in the rate of radioactive decay? That is not observed to have ever happened.

4, and related to the foregoing, creationists can posit major change at the destruction of the global flood, to that exchange rate.

Creationist can posit whatever they wish, radioactive decay does not slow down because things get rained on for forty days.

Are you asserting that at the time of the flood when, by your theory, the world was 2000 years old, that the flood waters some how artificially added age to all of the bone fragments and wood we now think are 6,000 to 68,000 years old, on some sort of sliding, proportional scale, to line them up with other archeological evidence in such a way that the basic timeline is consistent?

Amusing theory if you have thought it through that far. You are talking about magic, not science.

5,you have offered nothing to explain your problem.

I don't have a problem. " creationists can posit" is not an argument. It is not even conjecture. It is a conjecture about the possibility of a conjecture. Evidence please!

6,unless you can overcome this, it is in fact you who is arguing against science!

No. Sorry, It is still you.

Please apologize for wasting our time.