[Liberty1970]

The presence of C-14 throughout the geologic record is solid evidence that it is only thousands, not millions of years old.

"Earth age" estimates are based on Uranium decay, not C-14.

In the old-earth model, yes. But my point was that C-14 is now well known to exist alongside C-12 even deep in the fossil record. Coal deposits and diamonds (which are composed of carbon) have been consistently 'dated' with C-14 dating techniques.

C-14 has a half-life of only ~5.7 KYA. At this rate after 10 half-lives (c. 57,000 years) less than 1/1000 of the original portion of C-14 would remain. After a million years a mass of C-14 the size of the earth would have completely decayed, not even a single atom of C-14 remaining. So the presence of C-14 in coal and diamonds conventionally thought to be hundreds of millions of years old is strong evidence they are not that old at all.

[tacticalogic]

In the old-earth model, yes.

How does the young-earth model account for the evidence of age based on uranium decay? Do they simply ignore it?

[tacticalogic]

So the presence of C-14 in coal and diamonds conventionally thought to be hundreds of millions of years old is strong evidence they are not that old at all.

It is evidence. On what criteria is the evidence being qualified as "strong" or "weak"?

[tacticalogic]

C-14 has a half-life of only ~5.7 KYA. At this rate after 10 half-lives (c. 57,000 years) less than 1/1000 of the original portion of C-14 would remain. After a million years a mass of C-14 the size of the earth would have completely decayed, not even a single atom of C-14 remaining. So the presence of C-14 in coal and diamonds conventionally thought to be hundreds of millions of years old is strong evidence they are not that old at all.

Are you disputing the physicist's claims that trace amounts of C-14 are being constantly created in the atmosphere by cosmic rays colliding with Nitrogen atoms?