Carbon dating fossils rocks
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).
As soon as it dies, however, the C ration gets smaller.
In other words, we have a ‘clock’ which starts ticking at the moment something dies.
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 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.Imagine a tank with water flowing in at a certain rate, and flowing out again at the same rate (see diagram below). If you saw it for the first time, you wouldn’t be able to work out how old it was—how long it had been since it was ‘switched on’.was entering the system some 12-20% faster than it was leaving.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? 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.