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.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.This means that he thought that C was entering the atmosphere as fast as it was leaving—calculations show that this should take place in about 30,000 years, and of course the Earth was much older than that, said the geologists.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.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.In other words, going into the past, we should reach a period of time in which there is a sharp reduction in the number of specimens compared to the period just older than that, and as we went forward in time, we would expect a gradual buildup, as plant and animal populations recovered their numbers. Using the 15,000 published dates previously mentioned after adjusting them as described, he grouped them into 500 year ‘blocks’ and found a dramatic drop-off about 5,000 years ago, with a worldwide distribution (, Ed.
In fact, the whole method is a giant ‘clock’ which seems to put a very young upper limit on the age of the atmosphere.
Remember that this correction is based on measurable scientific data, not on any creationist preconceptions.
We need to consider two other effects: In any case, even the incorrect ‘uniform’ model has given, in many cases, serious embarrassment to evolutionists by giving ages which are much younger than those he expects in terms of his model of earth history.
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.