C-14 gets wound up in the upper atmosphere (happens instantly due collisions) but it will take over 35,000 years for it to decay. The fossils are all dating young but the reason they are dating old is the problems of commercial labs prodical not that the fossils themselves are old, etc...
You don't have the first clue about radiocarbon (C14) dating. It appears you have obtained all of your information from creationist websites, and on this subject they spin a horrible number of absolute falsehoods designed to make the unwary accept their belief in a young earth.
First, C14 starts decaying the minute it is formed; its half life is 5,730 years, so after that length of time half the C14 in a once-living organism has decayed. The upper limit of the method runs from about 35,000 to 60,000 years depending on the laboratory equipment. A couple of labs are experimenting with 80,000 years, but that is not yet perfected.
Second, fossils are not dated using C14 dating! For fossils you need some of the other forms of radiometric dating. And they are not processed in the same laboratories that do C14 dating.
Baumgardener? one of those reputable creationists has shown how up to 50,000 years of C-14 is buffered out of the carbon fossils dated by the commercial labs.
I have read some of the studies you are (sort of) referring to. They are phonies. When you get to 50,000 years, at the upper limit of the radiocarbon method, the tiniest amount of contamination starts to overwhelm the real C14, and the real signal gets lost in the background. It is those effects that some creationists are using to find C14 in coal, diamonds, and other materials that are millions of years old. They then make a big deal of those materials being much younger than they are supposed to be. Its phony, and a misuse of the radiocarbon technique. If that's the best science the creationists can do they should just give up. (And don't even bother bringing up the RATE Project! What a joke!)
Basically fossils ages are being fudged to support circular reasoning dates, indicator fossils, but the evolutionists never actually date these fossil, because if they did the lab test correctly it would support the young earthers.
You should do some research, and not on those silly creationist websites. You have swallowed a lot of falsehoods.
If you have some real questions about radiometric dating, just ask them. There are a couple of folks here who are pretty familiar with the method and I (doing archaeology) have submitted nearly 600 samples myself, as well as lectured and written on the archaeological aspects of the method.
But please don't try to pass of that creationist nonsense as factual because a number of us here know something about the radiocarbon technique, while you apparently do not.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.