You do know that carbon 14 is generated in the upper atmosphere at a known rate, and decays over time at a known rate, don’t you?
You also do know that carbon 14 dating is based on the ratio of carbon 14 to carbon 12, and if you suck (or bury) a whole bunch of carbon out of the system, the ratio of the remainder doesn’t change in the slightest.
That vast amounts of carbon were buried doesn’t change anything with regards to carbon 14 dating, any more than shooting 99% of the population at random would change the ratio of surviving males and females.
I assume you also know that tree ring dating, which uses the width of growth rings, which in turn varies year by year depending on weather and climate, and produces year-related patterns as distinctive as fingerprints, shows unbroken overlapping patterns of rings going back tens of thousands of years, don’t you?
No, so sorry but I do not subscribe to your limited view of carbon 12 vs 14 ratios not being affected by removal of vast amounts of carbon. I may have stated it akwards [or somewhat backwards] but the flood is a major consequence for carbon dating.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ223.html#wp4866524
Tree ring data has been shown to be unreliable as the rings do not represent one year - rather simply another growth cycle - sometimes several growth cycles within 1 year.