The argument may be compared to filling a barrel which has numerous small holes in its sides.We stick the garden hose in and turn it on full blast.

The water coming out of the hose is analogous to the continuous production of carbon-14 atoms in the upper atmosphere.

The barrel represents the earth's atmosphere in which the carbon-14 accumulates.

The water level just sits there even though the hose is going full blast.

(The barrel is made deep enough so that we don't have to worry about water overflowing the rim.) Henry Morris argued that if we started filling up our empty barrel it would take 30,000 years to reach the equilibrium point.

This tendency to decay, called radioactivity, is what gives radiocarbon the name radiocarbon.

The atmosphere contains many stable carbon atoms and relatively few radiocarbon atoms.

The water leaking out the sides of the barrel represents the loss (mainly by radioactive decay) of the atmosphere's supply of carbon-14.

Now, the fuller that barrel gets the more water is going to leak out the thoroughly perforated sides, just as more carbon-14 will decay if you have more of it around.

When an organism dies (whether plant or animal) its intake of carbon atoms ceases.

The starting ratio of radiocarbon to stable carbon is locked in at that point. The purpose in each of these methods is to determine the ratio of radiocarbon to stable carbon in the sample.

Could it be that the whole scientific community has missed this point, or is it another case of creationist daydreaming?