Creationism carbon 14 dating
Libby knew that if these figures were correct, it would mean that the atmosphere was young, so he dismissed the results as being due to experimental error!
(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?
-- Evolution is not based on science, but on hiding from God no matter what.
The evolutionists do not care that their radioactive dating methods do not work.
Libby knew that C was entering and leaving the atmosphere (and hence the carbon cycle).
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.
In other words, we have a ‘clock’ which starts ticking at the moment something dies.
Obviously this only works for things which once contained carbon—it can’t be used to date rocks and minerals, for example. We obviously need to know this to be able to work out at what point the ‘clock’ began to tick.
Think of it like a teaspoon of cocoa mixed into a cake dough—after a while, the ‘ratio’ of cocoa to flour particles would be roughly the same no matter which part of the cake you sampled.
We’ve seen that it would have been the same as in the atmosphere at the time the specimen died. Do scientists assume that it was the same as it is now? It is well known that the industrial revolution, with its burning of huge masses of coal, etc.
has upset the natural carbon balance by releasing huge quantities of C ratio was like before the industrial revolution, and all radiocarbon dating is made with this in mind.
The fact that the C doesn’t matter in a living thing—because it is constantly exchanging carbon with its surroundings, the ‘mixture’ will be the same as in the atmosphere and in all living things.
As soon as it dies, however, the C ration gets smaller.