This nullifies the carbon-14 method as well as demonstrating that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. One suspects that the scientific world would not be using the carbon-14 method if it were so obviously flawed.
Could it be that the whole scientific community has missed this point, or is it another case of creationist daydreaming?
In spite of the frequently stated phrases that "all radiation is harmful" and that "there is no safe dose of radiation", we humans contain, survive, and thrive with rather remarkable quantities of radioactive materials in our bodies.
This is not unexpected, for we do live on a somewhat radioactive planet.
Despite seeming like a relatively stable place, the Earth's surface has changed dramatically over the past 4.6 billion years.
Or does it mean that once in a while such an event may cause a cancer?
These changes typically occur so slowly that they are barely detectable over the span of a human life, yet even at this instant, the Earth's surface is moving and changing.
As these changes have occurred, organisms have evolved, and remnants of some have been preserved as fossils.
The barrel represents the earth's atmosphere in which the carbon-14 accumulates.
The water leaking out the sides of the barrel represents the loss (mainly by radioactive decay) of the atmosphere's supply of carbon-14.