Because Libby believed that the Earth was millions of years old, he assumed that there had been plenty of time for the system to be in equilibrium.
(We are not implying dishonesty here, merely showing how powerfully the evolutionary/uniformitarian concepts of Earth history influence great scientists to mould or discard evidence which appears to contradict that viewpoint.) What about modern measurements, using advanced technology such as satellites?
Unfortunately for the ‘old-Earth’ advocates, the studies of such renowned atmospheric physicists as Suess and Lingenfelter show that C is entering the system some 30-32% faster than it is leaving it.
It is assumed that the ratio has been constant for a very long time before the industrial revolution. (For on it hangs the whole validity of the system.) Why did W. Libby, the brilliant discoverer of this system, assume this?
Libby knew that C was entering and leaving the atmosphere (and hence the carbon cycle).
This is especially remarkable with samples of coal and gas supposedly produced in the carboniferous 100 million years ago! Note that the data presented does not necessarily endorse a particular age for the Earth, but reveals a pattern We see, then, that far from being an embarrassment to the creationist who believes in a young Earth, the radiocarbon method of dating—when fully understood in accordance with modern atmospheric data—gives powerful support to his position.
Some examples of dates which contradict orthodox (evolutionary) views: , pub. If you were to read an article every day from this site it would take you 20 years to read them all.
by Creation-Science Research Center) A question which could be asked after all this is: does radio-carbon, adjusted to fit the ‘non-uniform’ model, give any independent evidence of a worldwide catastrophe such as the Flood? Such a wealth of information didn’t arise by chance.
Certainly if there was such a Flood, as we maintain from several other lines of evidence and reasoning, most living things would have perished, and so we would expect a ‘cut-off’ point at this time.
Consider this—if a specimen is older than 50,000 years, it has been calculated, it would have such a small amount of C that for practical purposes it would show an ‘infinite’ radiocarbon age. Readers are referred to this article for other interesting conclusions about these dates.
So it was expected that most deposits such as coal, gas, petrified trees, etc. In fact, of 15,000 dates in the journal to 1968, only three were classed ‘un-dateable’—most were of the sort which should have been in this category. [Editor’s note: The graph below was reproduced from a sketch in the original magazine.
The article is in straightforward language and the non-technical reader could profitably work through it.