Carbon Dating DOESN'T work beyond 4500 years

Alright, as a Creation Scientist, this is a rather complex explanation, so sorry if I lose some of you...
When solar radiation strikes the earth's atmospher, it converts the stable carbon-12 (found in CO2) into radioactive Carbon-14. Now, Carbon-14 accumulates on all living organisms (dont worry, it's not enough to harm you, and there's nothing you can do about it anyway). So, when an animal dies, the Carbon-14 loses two subatomic particles and is released back into the atmosphere as normal, regular Carbon-12. The half-life of Carbon-14 is 5730 years, which means that, every 5730 years, half the remaining C-14 in the animal body is left. So, every 5730 years the amount of C-14 reduces from 1/2 to 1/4 to 1/8 etc. So, the scientists carbon-date a dead animal carcas by measuring how much C-14 is still in the animal and, therefore, how long it's been dead.The problem is, the magnetic field is decaying around the earth. The earth is covered in a magnetic field, which is STEADILY losing its strength by 1/2 every 1400 years. There are no magnetic reversals--there are only areas of stronger and weaker magnetism. So, if there are no reversals, then we know that the magnetic field has been shrinking at a measurably-stable rate. So, by the half-life of the magnetic field, the magnetic field would have been 320% stronger around 4500 years ago. But the thing is, the magnetic field filters out a lot of radiation (radiation is needed to make C-14). So, if the magnetic field was 320% stronger 4500 years ago, then it would've reflected most of the radiation, and therefore there would have been less C-14 in the atmosphere in ancient times--thus the C-14 in the atmosphere was at an un-measurable increase. Therefore, we cannot accurately Carbon-date ANYTHING because that would be assuming that the magnetic field was ALWAYS at the same strength it is today. For an example of wacky carbon dating rates:
The vollosovich mammoth was carbon-dated at 29000 years old, and the the SAME mammoth was carbon-dated at 44000 years old! Living Seals were carbon-dated as having died 1400 years ago! The shell of a living clam was carbon-dated as having died thousands of years ago! Trust me, if somebody comes up to you and says, "carbon dating proves the earth is millions of years old" they DO NOT know what they're talking about.As the magnetic field shrinks, the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere increases, so C-14 dating doesnt work like scientists think...

First of all, C-14 has not reached the point of equilibrium yet. The assumption that still remains unsettled is that the C-14 in the atmosphere prior to the Biblical flood have been different. The water canopy at the outer layer of the atmosphere--which would account for where the flood-water came from AND explains why tropical plants were found frozen in the Arctic circles--would have kept the radiation out of the atmosphere before the flood. Therefore, C-14 abundance in the atmosphere would have been increasing immediately following the flood and the collapse of the water canopy.
Remember that there IS water found in space, and when water becomes subjected to colder temperatures as in the atmosphere, it becomes magnetic. So scientifically, IT IS scientifically possible that there would've been a canopy (that would explain why the Bible says there was an 'expanse' that seperated the upper waters from the lower waters, and also would explain why C-14 has it's inconsistencies). Also, tree-ring dating is not exactly accurate either. For instance, the rings in the trees are caused by annual percipitaion--when a year sees much drought, the rings are closer together because water was less abundant. Also, when rain is fluctuating, there is often observed to be more than one ring formed in the same year. (I found a freshly-cut tree along my campsite, and counted the rings. Although the forest was planted thirty-some years earlier, there were about 45 rings in the tree). C-14 would naturally be more abundant in trees anyway, because trees absorb C02, and thus intaking C-14 as well.

(replies to some of my ?friends?)
Coragypus:Yes I have been reading a little Walt Brown--I understand he does not believe in the canopy theory, but most creationists do--the canopy theory would explain WHY the Bible mentions the expanse and the water ABOVE the expanse. That would also give a rational explanation to where the water came from during the flood (the forty days of rain).John:
Sorry to bust your bubble, but there IS evidence for the flood?tons. Have you ever been to Oregon? Yes, the John Day Fossil Bed is about 140 miles east of Salem (over 210 miles from the nearest coastline) and displays overwhelming evidence of a deluge that once covered almost all of Oregon. Here is the evidence from the fossil bed in Oregon:
1) the ?mountains? or large hills at John Day are EXTREMELY smooth, displaying OBVIOUS evidence of quite a bit of erosion.
2) The fossil bed contains quite a large abundance of animal fossils (the plain area around John Day is very desolate and the animal fossils do not seem to fit with the evolution theory as well as with the flood story).
3) Cutting into the rock in the hills are large, smooth, grooves?indicating water run-off.
Grand Canyon is an obvious spillway. The river running through Grand Canyon runs downhill, while the canyon banks continue to rise. The uplift argument is inconsistent because, if the height of the canyon sides were because of uplift, then the river would have dammed up and created a late behind the river. So the uplift argument is not consistent because the river continues to run downhill while the surrounding land rises. Also, canyons with steep sides indicate very rapid erosion, while canyons with twisting and winding indicate very slow-moving water (the Grand Canyon has both?so the uplift ?millions of years? argument is not very conclusive).Also, Pangea is just a proposition that has no evidence. Look at a map of pangea:http://svc403.bne025u.server-web.com/...ustralia_permian.htmand tell me: Where is Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica, Panama, Belize? They?re not there!!!
Also, if pangea is true, then perhaps you could explain WHY they would have had to shrink Africa 30-40 percent to make them fit together in the picture?
Also, the fossilized CLAMS found atop the Himalayas are evidence of a flood. And uplift COULD NOT have caused the clams to be there, because the clams are closed. You see, when a clam dies the muscle relaxes and the shell opens. I guarantee you?ll never find an un-fossilized clam that is still closed and dead. But the ones on Himalayan mountains are?that is evidence that they were buried quickly, and preserved by a water-catastrophe.
Also, perhaps, since there is ?no evidence? for the flood, you might be able to explain the polystrate fossils all over Nova Scotia and in parts of Yellowstone and Oregon (I have quite a bit of family in Oregon, and I?ve visited plenty of areas where they have polystrate objects that stick through many layers that are supposed to be different ages).
There IS evidence of the flood (the evolutionist doesn?t find the evidence for the same reason why the criminal doesn?t find a police officer?They?re not looking for IT!!)In Christ
Booboo

First of all, the Himalaya area around Mt. Everest was NEVER an ocean floor (even if your uplift argument be true, Everest was still miles from where India and Asia would have met Millions of years ago.) Also, you see, when a flood washes across a land, mud slides and avalanches are formed and cover many miles of unprotected areas. I DID NOT SAY that they instantly petrified. I said they were INSTANTLY BURRIED, and petrified as the muscle inside decayed--it IS possible for objects to petrify in as little as one or two years when placed under moving water.

Where would you believe that Mt. Everest was ever underwater before the uplift (not even uplift would have done that much). You see, the coast would have been to the first to uplift, and if Mt. Everest used to be underwater, it would not have become the highest point it is today--that is simple high-school earth science.Anyway, back to the topic, perhaps there is a reasonable explanation to the tree-ring errancy. You see, there are plenty of times when a tree's rings are greater in number than the tree's actual age. That conclusion requires ONLY the ability to count and the observed age of the tree. I used to live in New York, and the campground there was only 30-40 years old (some of the land was bought at different times) anyway, the trees of Daggat Lake were planted only a few decades ago, yet the tree that was cut down along the nature trail had over 50 rings. Just curious as to how exactly does C-14 match up 'inerrantly' with tree-ring dating.

Yes, I see your point.However, the oldest living tree and the oldest living coral reef are 4300 and 4200 y.o. respectively. That added to my conclusion to why carbon dating might only work up to around 4000 years (maybe as much as 4500).
Also, Dr. Libby (the founder of radiocarbon dating) admitted that carbon dating would not work with any degree of scientific accuracy beyond about 4000 years.
Also, like I said, the magnetic field (although fluctuating some, generally is weakening) is fluctuating slightly, which might explain why certain carbon dates have been known to be inconsistent with one another.