Why am I a young earther if all science points to billions of years?

[Silverhair]

The Red Shift? It's the same as the Blue Shift and the Doppler Effect. All observable, testable, and provable. Just the expansion and/or compression of light waves or sound waves between two objects. Such as why does the pitch of a train change to your ear when it is coming towards you and when it passes by you. The Red Shift, in like manner but concerning light waves, proves the Universe is expanding for the hugely most part.

Radioactive decay? In terms of dating objects? I can only speak of what I understand.

It's very real. But misunderstood. Let's take Carbon-14 dating and radioactive decay. Regular carbon that you think of when you see the periodic table is Carbon-12. It has in the center of it as an atom - 6 protons and 6 neutrons. Hence, the 12. Carbon-14 has 6 protons and 8 neutrons, hence the 14.

Carbon-12 is stable and is of no use for dating. Carbon-14 is UNstable, or radioactive and is used for dating fossils of only things that were once alive. Not rocks or the earth. It takes uranium for that.

It's complicated, but if one can find the ratio of the living creature's C-14 levels and it's own deceased fossil's level of Carbon-14, you could theoretically "date" it.

The problem. Hmmm.....knowing the ancient creature's, such as a T. Rex's Carbon-14 levels when it was alive. I believe that mankind was here with the dinosaurs, but mankind had no special knowledge of Carbon-14 and using it to age things.

So, what to do? Well, using the ratio of Carbon-14 to Carbon-12 in the atmosphere is used. That does seem to be a constant in living things today as living things including plants get their Carbon-14 from eating and breathing.

But the real problem. Problematic enough to throw a monkey wrench in the works. Is the ratio of C-14 to C-12 in the atmosphere REALLY a constant?

With the decay of the magnetic field which would affect the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere, can we truly prove the constancy of C-14 from the beginning? It's enough of a question TO question C-14 dating.

And then there is the obvious and provable difference in the biosphere before and after the Great Flood. Animals were once HUGE! Now they are not. Something happened, whether you believe in a Great Flood or not to change the biosphere and ergo the amount of C-14 and C-12 in the atmosphere.

Those who have "proven" the T. Rex to have been here 65 million years ago, in my opinion, are using questionable ratios in their math problems.

Gotta hand it to those retired teachers, still know how to lay out the relevant information.

 

[Scarlett O.]

Gotta hand it to those retired teachers, still know how to lay out the relevant information.

I learned to do that by teaching science to 7th, 8th, and 9th grade and the Bible to Kindergarteners at church and 6th graders at a Christian school I was at for four years. If people don't understand what you are saying, whether a teacher, preacher, or parent - you might as well be speaking gibberish.

 

[Van]

I read the OP and loved it! The idea that Government manipulators require unproved theories to be taught as facts should result in voting the rascals out.

1) Man-mad global warming caused by burning fossil fuel?

2) The Oort Cloud as the source of long period comets?

3) The age of the earth, based on when it was formed from the pre-solar nebula at about 5 billion years?

4) The wet market as the source of the COVID pandemic.

Can you imagine what kids were taught about mountain formation before plate tectonics?

Science is based on provable theories. Pseudoscience is based on Government mandates to support Communism and Atheism.

 

[Psalty]

The Red Shift? It's the same as the Blue Shift and the Doppler Effect. All observable, testable, and provable. Just the expansion and/or compression of light waves or sound waves between two objects. Such as why does the pitch of a train change to your ear when it is coming towards you and when it passes by you. The Red Shift, in like manner but concerning light waves, proves the Universe is expanding for the hugely most part.

Radioactive decay? In terms of dating objects? I can only speak of what I understand.

It's very real. But misunderstood. Let's take Carbon-14 dating and radioactive decay. Regular carbon that you think of when you see the periodic table is Carbon-12. It has in the center of it as an atom - 6 protons and 6 neutrons. Hence, the 12. Carbon-14 has 6 protons and 8 neutrons, hence the 14.

Carbon-12 is stable and is of no use for dating. Carbon-14 is UNstable, or radioactive and is used for dating fossils of only things that were once alive. Not rocks or the earth. It takes uranium for that.

It's complicated, but if one can find the ratio of the living creature's C-14 levels and it's own deceased fossil's level of Carbon-14, you could theoretically "date" it.

The problem. Hmmm.....knowing the ancient creature's, such as a T. Rex's Carbon-14 levels when it was alive. I believe that mankind was here with the dinosaurs, but mankind had no special knowledge of Carbon-14 and using it to age things.

So, what to do? Well, using the ratio of Carbon-14 to Carbon-12 in the atmosphere is used. That does seem to be a constant in living things today as living things including plants get their Carbon-14 from eating and breathing.

But the real problem. Problematic enough to throw a monkey wrench in the works. Is the ratio of C-14 to C-12 in the atmosphere REALLY a constant?

With the decay of the magnetic field which would affect the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere, can we truly prove the constancy of C-14 from the beginning? It's enough of a question TO question C-14 dating.

And then there is the obvious and provable difference in the biosphere before and after the Great Flood. Animals were once HUGE! Now they are not. Something happened, whether you believe in a Great Flood or not to change the biosphere and ergo the amount of C-14 and C-12 in the atmosphere.

Those who have "proven" the T. Rex to have been here 65 million years ago, in my opinion, are using questionable ratios in their math problems.

Just 2 things on this,… and Im not your enemy on this stuff, just fyi!

1. If you calculate rate of expansion with red shift… you get a much older age than 10k years old for earth.

2. Radioactive decay. As Christians, we sound bad when most of us as non-scientists say that they are wrong in the fields they work in. We are literally making assertions that they are fundamentally wrong on their formulas, data, science and calculations.

While it may be true that they are off, you have to SHOW it. I have heard a christian dentist who is against evolution argue that all of these things are wrong, but without evidence, we just aound like nay-sayers.

Do any of you know Christian scientists that have debunked Radioactive Dating on a scientific level?

 

[DaveXR650]

While it may be true that they are off, you have to SHOW it. I have heard a christian dentist who is against evolution argue that all of these things are wrong, but without evidence, we just aound like nay-sayers.

You have a point. But this is just the nature of the differences, isn't it? The scientific theories start with a proposition, for instance that something degrades, or decays at a certain rate, or that something like a continent moving or erosion occurring continues at that rate and thus calculations can be made based upon those facts. In the later years of the evolution-creation debate in the US, when they were arguing in courts whether school systems should teach creation along side evolution this was the argument evolutionists used. That is, they claimed that science is what science does, and therefore creation science cannot be real, and even if it was true, it simply is not science.

In a sense they were making the same point you are making. Even if God did instantaneously create everything 6000 years ago there would be no way to prove that using human science. And they have a point.
Science, and especially evolutionary science starts with the assumption that no supernatural influence is involved. That is why evolutionary scientists reserve their most severe criticism for those who talk of "intelligent design".

So, what you say above, that if they are off you have to show it, is an impossible task. It would be like telling us that if we are going to say that one rose from the dead, in a body dying from abuse and trauma and loss of blood and being kept at normal temperature for days then we have to show it scientifically. And of course that is exactly what they do, all the while knowing that if we can't then they think they have won, and if we do, then it wasn't supernatural after all. Personally, I like all things "science" and see some merit to their argument. I would just add that science should learn where to stop and confine itself to a human study of the physical realm. They jumped into religion and they blur the two, in my opinion.

 

[Deacon]

I would just add that science should learn where to stop and confine itself to a human study of the physical realm. They jumped into religion and they blur the two, in my opinion.

Nice post, but you're personifying science - science isn't a person or people. Science is the study of the physical world and its phenomena.
Science and Theology should agree, we're studying the world God created.
Including God in science deals with the philosophy of science, rather than pure science (which precludes God).

That's where some of the criticism against intelligent design arises. Sometimes the intelligent design position is used instead of further research, since the answer often is "Gosh, God did it, isn't he amazing."

The topic of Creation must be discussed in its relation to theology, cosmology, or metaphysics. Ideas expressed within these are most often theoretical.
Scarlett's initial post where she writes about the "Ort cloud" for example, deals with theoretical science [interesting though, is that the Voyager probes have only recently provided us with some data on the far stretches of our galaxy that begin to provide some physical data.]

Rob

 

[Ascetic X]

That's where some of the criticism against intelligent design arises. Sometimes the intelligent design position is used instead of further research, since the answer often is "Gosh, God did it, isn't he amazing."



Rob

Why would intelligent design cause investigation to stop, with “God did it, isn’t He amazing?”? The identification of the source of phenomena does not explain the inner workings of them.

Intelligent design states that God is the first cause and director, rather than spontaneous autonomous random processes with no ultimate aim in view.

A secular scientist could just as easily say, “Evolution did it, isn’t evolution amazing?” and stop researching a phenomenon.

 

[Scarlett O.]

Just 2 things on this,… and Im not your enemy on this stuff, just fyi!

1. If you calculate rate of expansion with red shift… you get a much older age than 10k years old for earth.

2. Radioactive decay. As Christians, we sound bad when most of us as non-scientists say that they are wrong in the fields they work in. We are literally making assertions that they are fundamentally wrong on their formulas, data, science and calculations.

While it may be true that they are off, you have to SHOW it. I have heard a christian dentist who is against evolution argue that all of these things are wrong, but without evidence, we just aound like nay-sayers.

Do any of you know Christian scientists that have debunked Radioactive Dating on a scientific level?a

Thanks for asking for clarification on the matter.

I have the raw data from the research by Dr. Millard Libby that was used as a proof of carbon dating. I should have put it in the other post, but I thought it would be too long.

It's QUITE food for thought. It might even be called jaw-dropping what it DID prove.

Dr. Libby worked on the Manhattan Project and continued after the fact working on radioactivity. His ideas of using C-14 to date fossils is interesting, but his numbers, even to his own admission are off. I'll show you all that. He used the research anyway, was highly published, and was given the Nobel Prize for Chemistry.

Nobel Prize? Must be true and provable then, right? I understand that there are Christian nay-sayers. Christians, scientists, parents, students, and the public in general believe FAR too much of what they hear. No one wants to prove anymore. They just want to give proof-texts.

It's going to take me a while today to gather that up and make it not be 18 pages!!!

 

[DaveXR650]

Intelligent design states that God is the first cause and director, rather than spontaneous autonomous random processes with no ultimate aim in view.

Right. And is proposes that using only science, not appealing to the work of God, there are irreducible complexities that render it impossible for this or that to evolve - based on the criteria that evolutionists have themselves set up. That being that for evolution to occur there must be a change that benefits the organism's ability to survive and reproduce in a superior way that the new genetic makeup becomes predominate.

For example, one might say that the lightening bug can signal for mating purposes and thus the behavior and structure we see has evolved to the benefit of the creature. But then one might point out that there are 8 pages of organic chemistry reactions occurring to cause the light, there are 20 more mutations giving the creature the ability to control the light, and there are 20 more mutations to give the creatures the ability to know the meaning of the lighting for purposes of mating. Intelligent design simply says that none of that helps the poor bug until all is in place. You can appeal to time and chance, and you may get away with it when describing how a moth changed color over time because of their habitat changing, or the thickness of a finch beak changed to adapt to a certain common seed on an isolated island, but they struggle to apply this to the complexity of mutational change that has to occur, simultaneously, for evolution to be the sole driving force for all the plant and animal kingdom.

As we learn more and more about what is occurring at the cellular level, if you notice the evolutionists still use the small change micro-evolution, because that is probably true. Unless you try to apply that as an explanation for all of creation - which is by definition, what they have to do. So, I would say the beauty of intelligent design is that it simply says "You want science, fine. Now let's really look at what you are claiming and explain what we now know, beyond pea pods and moth colors, and then ask if nothing but time and chance, along with environmental pressure can truly account for all we see."

 

[Psalty]

You have a point. But this is just the nature of the differences, isn't it? The scientific theories start with a proposition, for instance that something degrades, or decays at a certain rate, or that something like a continent moving or erosion occurring continues at that rate and thus calculations can be made based upon those facts. In the later years of the evolution-creation debate in the US, when they were arguing in courts whether school systems should teach creation along side evolution this was the argument evolutionists used. That is, they claimed that science is what science does, and therefore creation science cannot be real, and even if it was true, it simply is not science.

In a sense they were making the same point you are making. Even if God did instantaneously create everything 6000 years ago there would be no way to prove that using human science. And they have a point.
Science, and especially evolutionary science starts with the assumption that no supernatural influence is involved. That is why evolutionary scientists reserve their most severe criticism for those who talk of "intelligent design".

So, what you say above, that if they are off you have to show it, is an impossible task. It would be like telling us that if we are going to say that one rose from the dead, in a body dying from abuse and trauma and loss of blood and being kept at normal temperature for days then we have to show it scientifically. And of course that is exactly what they do, all the while knowing that if we can't then they think they have won, and if we do, then it wasn't supernatural after all. Personally, I like all things "science" and see some merit to their argument. I would just add that science should learn where to stop and confine itself to a human study of the physical realm. They jumped into religion and they blur the two, in my opinion.

I personally believe that science will always validate creation.

So take the red shift.
1. It agrees with creation of the universe at a point in time
2. It does not agree on the timing of a literal Gen 1.
3. It is the non-evolutionists duty to show how and why the science supports a young creation, because for now the 2 remain unreconciled.

I dont believe that reconciling by simply saying “allegory” is the obvious answer. I would like some Christian science to debunk claims. And if it cant, then come up with another answer.

 

[Psalty]

Thanks for asking for clarification on the matter.

I have the raw data from the research by Dr. Millard Libby that was used as a proof of carbon dating. I should have put it in the other post, but I thought it would be too long.

It's QUITE food for thought. It might even be called jaw-dropping what it DID prove.

Dr. Libby worked on the Manhattan Project and continued after the fact working on radioactivity. His ideas of using C-14 to date fossils is interesting, but his numbers, even to his own admission are off. I'll show you all that. He used the research anyway, was highly published, and was given the Nobel Prize for Chemistry.

Nobel Prize? Must be true and provable then, right? I understand that there are Christian nay-sayers. Christians, scientists, parents, students, and the public in general believe FAR too much of what they hear. No one wants to prove anymore. They just want to give proof-texts.

It's going to take me a while today to gather that up and make it not be 18 pages!!!

Thank you so much! Even scanned and attached docs would be enough… i am a reader!

 

[DaveXR650]

Nice post, but you're personifying science - science isn't a person or people. Science is the study of the physical world and its phenomena.
Science and Theology should agree, we're studying the world God created.
Including God in science deals with the philosophy of science, rather than pure science (which precludes God).

I think science on practical levels like engineering and medicine, is done just like that, and one's views on God and creation need not be a factor in the search for knowledge. My problem with teaching evolution is that by their own definition you must omit any reference to God. Remember the old PBS series Cosmos? They did not stay in their lane and were attacking intelligent design by the second episode.

Yes, they do use the argument that pure science precludes God. But if you are going to teach even undergraduate college students, much more so school children, that God must be omitted when discussing science I think you are doing them a grave disservice. The evolutionists seem to want it both ways. They want to become all philosophical and try to explain everything - and then if challenged on this they want to claim they are only doing pure science and thus God should be excluded.

 

[easternstar]

I've known about and liked Stephen C. Meyer for a while. He believes in Intelligent Design, but he's not a Young Earth creationist. Here's a fascinating interview with him:

Stephen C. Meyer Interview: The Argument for a Mind Behind the Universe

Stephen C. Meyer is the current director of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture in Seattle. A former geophysicist and college professor, he is an advocate of intelligent desi...

smashinginterviews.com

 

[Ben1445]

I personally believe that science will always validate creation.

So take the red shift.
1. It agrees with creation of the universe at a point in time
2. It does not agree on the timing of a literal Gen 1.
3. It is the non-evolutionists duty to show how and why the science supports a young creation, because for now the 2 remain unreconciled.

I dont believe that reconciling by simply saying “allegory” is the obvious answer. I would like some Christian science to debunk claims. And if it cant, then come up with another answer.

I’m not sure where the red shift places a creation.
To me, all these sorts of arguments fall into the bellybutton category that must be considered as did God create it at a peak or did God create it at a point with a backlog of events so to speak?
It takes a long time for light to reach the earth from som stars. But God appears to have created them so that we don’t have to wait for the light to reach us.
I know that when God made the stars that the light was visible immediately. God them for signs and seasons. They would not be worth much of a sign if they couldn’t be seen.
How can a person conclude beyond reasonable doubt that God couldn’t have created after a certain point? Apart from history, we can account for some time frame.

the Moon is 15.13 billion inches away from Earth
the moon is getting further away from the earth every year by 1.5 inches. That means that the orbit of the moon around the earth about 10 billion years ago would be the mountains on the earth punching craters into the moon. Beyond this not being a part of the creation account, it’s also a physical impossibility for the moon to start leaving the earth when they are that close. Any gravity deniers here? Sure the 1.5 inches a year may not be a constant. But just for starters, how close does the moon have to be before it starts coming down instead of away? I don’t think it’s reasonable to say any more than half of the 10 billion years ago for a creation date. I would call that a ceiling date. There are other things that must be factored and they all come with their own ceilings.
The mitochondrial Eve situation brings us to the 100s of thousands of years for people. It is speculation that there are extinct matriarchal lines. One must find evidence of an extinct matriarchal lineage for that to be a consideration. There are too many pigs teeth in the world of “science” and “history” of evolution for me to take any of their arguments seriously. What’s worse is that having known about the errors, they continued to teach them, I can’t believe any of it even if I wanted to.

None of these convince me that we have a “creation at least as old as.” These tell me that the universe is “no older than.”
These tell sunken ship argument.
If you find a chest of coins on a sunken ship, the ship could not have sunk before a coin was made. It must have been after the coin was minted. It is important to look at the data and see how it limits your possibilities.
Common evolutionary theories are only pushing their timelines further back with no apparent accounting for limiting factors.
This is not a complete argument. Just food for thought. And yes, I am a young earth creationist with no gaps.

 

[percho]

@Scarlett O. because it is your OP but all share

Questions and thoughts. BTW I will bracket something sometime because it is in the Greek. Whether that means anything or not I do not know for I know no Greek. I just know it is there, therefore I wonder.
BTW I believe Adam was created about 6000 years ago. But why then is my question relative to: The great dragon , that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan for as stated in,

Hebrews 2:14 YLT Seeing, then, the children have partaken of flesh and blood, he himself also in like manner did take part of the same, that through [the] death he might destroy him having the power of [the] death -- that is, the devil --
Hebrews 2:9

For how long did the devil have the power of the death, before Adam through the sin brought the death into the world? Kosmos. Not to the earth but into the Kosmos, world.
God told Adam dying thou dost die. Was that the death the devil had the power thereof? Had the devil through the sin caused any kind of death on the earth prior to Adam being created so the Son could be manifested as man and through the death destroy the devil?

Gen 1:2 And the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,
Acts 26:18 to open their eyes, to turn from darkness to light, and the authority of the Adversary [Satan] unto God, for their receiving forgiveness of sins, and a lot among those having been sanctified, by faith that is toward me.

1 John 3:8 he who is doing the sin, of the devil he is, because from the beginning the devil doth sin; for this was the Son of God manifested, that he may break up the works of the devil;

Was Adam created so the Son of God be manifested as Adam and through the death destroy the devil and the works of the devil.

Could the earth be a lot older than the man God put on the earth?

Has God established for this to be done through a seven thousand year time period?

 

[rockytopva]

Life on a planet is an incredible proposition!

Mass (m) = Energy (E/c2)
An atom (m) = encapsulated energy (E/c2)
A human cell - Contains trillions of atoms
A human body - Contains trillions of cells

Science doesn't have it figured out!

 

[Scarlett O.]

@Psalty,

Here are some links to internet archives of Dr. Libby's research and other papers.

Radiocarbon dating : Libby, Willard F. : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive [138 pages]

Willard F. Libby papers, ca. 1954-1976 - OAC

oac.cdlib.org

In a nutshell, here are some data points that interest me.

Dr. Libby, formerly associated with the Manhattan Project, started with the assumption that the level of Carbon-14 was a constant, ergo the ratio of C-14 to C-12 has been a constant from the beginning of the earth. And he started with an assumption that the earth was billions of years old.

He also believed, and to me, this is important, that the earth - in terms of C-14 was in a state of equilibrium. Meaning, the flow of C-14 INTO the atmosphere from cosmic rays reaching and entering the stratosphere and colliding with nitrogen and creating C-14 is and has been the same as the flow of C-14 decaying from living things after death.. To be in a state of equilibrium can be likened to this. If you turn on your faucet in the kitchen and then the phone rings and it's cousin Susie who talks for an hour, you don't have to worry about the sink overflowing because, fairly quickly, the amount of water flowing from faucet will be equal to the amount of water going down the drain and the level of water in the sink will not move.

He and others have stated that nothing AFTER 1950 can be dated due to nuclear testing contamination and deceased living things older than 50,000 to 60,000 cannot be dated as the half-life of C-14 is only 5730 years. Dinosaurs are "dated" with radiometric dating of the rocks found around them. But that with other elements such as potassium and uranium.

I may not be running with a straight train of thought here, but once the C-14 meets with oxygen, it makes carbon dioxide. The plant life absorbs the CO2 and the plant eaters eats the plants and the meat eaters eat it all. When they die, they take in no more CO2 and the C-14 breaks down again and decays.

OK, back to the equilibrium. Dr. Libby and his team found, in their research that that are 18.8 atoms of C-14 produced in the atmosphere every minute for every gram of C-12. So for carbon dating to be accurate and truthful according to Libby, the rate of decay from living things would have to be the same.

But he didn't find that. He found in the deceased matter from a wide variety of places that the average rate of decay of C-14 was not 18.8, but 15.3. So, no equilibrium.

He said, in the first link I gave you, on page 7 that "The agreement seems to be sufficiently within the experimental errors involved, so that we have reason for confidence in the theoretical picture set forth above". Does that not sound like he was saying, "Meh.....close enough? Or am I wrong? I'll admit MY error and stand corrected if need be.

Again, he said in 1955 that "If one were to imagine that the cosmic radiation had been turned off until a short while ago, the enormous amount of radiocarbon necessary to the equilibrium state WOULD NOT have been manufactured and the specific radioactivity of living matter would be much less than the rate of production calculated from the neutron intensity"
In other words if there was no equilibrium because the cosmic rays had not been flowing into the earth's atmosphere for very long, then that's why you would see a difference, not a constant. Here's the source for that quote. (Libby, Radiocarbon Dating, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955, p. 8).

And also in the first link I posted, Dr. Libby said, "If the cosmic radiation has remained at its present intensity for 20,000 or 30,000 years, and if the carbon reservoir has not changed appreciably in this time, then there exists at the present time a complete balance between the rate of disintegration of radiocarbon atoms and the rate of assimilation of new radiocarbon atoms for all material in the life-cycle"

He has a lot of "ifs" and assumptions. Wouldn't this mean since he found no equilibrium and it takes 20,000 to 30,000 to achieve it, then would that mean the earth is less than 20,000 to 30,000 years old?

 

[Psalty]

@Psalty,

Here are some links to internet archives of Dr. Libby's research and other papers.

Radiocarbon dating : Libby, Willard F. : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive [138 pages]

Willard F. Libby papers, ca. 1954-1976 - OAC

oac.cdlib.org

In a nutshell, here are some data points that interest me.

Dr. Libby, formerly associated with the Manhattan Project, started with the assumption that the level of Carbon-14 was a constant, ergo the ratio of C-14 to C-12 has been a constant from the beginning of the earth. And he started with an assumption that the earth was billions of years old.

He also believed, and to me, this is important, that the earth - in terms of C-14 was in a state of equilibrium. Meaning, the flow of C-14 INTO the atmosphere from cosmic rays reaching and entering the stratosphere and colliding with nitrogen and creating C-14 is and has been the same as the flow of C-14 decaying from living things after death.. To be in a state of equilibrium can be likened to this. If you turn on your faucet in the kitchen and then the phone rings and it's cousin Susie who talks for an hour, you don't have to worry about the sink overflowing because, fairly quickly, the amount of water flowing from faucet will be equal to the amount of water going down the drain and the level of water in the sink will not move.

He and others have stated that nothing AFTER 1950 can be dated due to nuclear testing contamination and deceased living things older than 50,000 to 60,000 cannot be dated as the half-life of C-14 is only 5730 years. Dinosaurs are "dated" with radiometric dating of the rocks found around them. But that with other elements such as potassium and uranium.

I may not be running with a straight train of thought here, but once the C-14 meets with oxygen, it makes carbon dioxide. The plant life absorbs the CO2 and the plant eaters eats the plants and the meat eaters eat it all. When they die, they take in no more CO2 and the C-14 breaks down again and decays.

OK, back to the equilibrium. Dr. Libby and his team found, in their research that that are 18.8 atoms of C-14 produced in the atmosphere every minute for every gram of C-12. So for carbon dating to be accurate and truthful according to Libby, the rate of decay from living things would have to be the same.

But he didn't find that. He found in the deceased matter from a wide variety of places that the average rate of decay of C-14 was not 18.8, but 15.3. So, no equilibrium.

He said, in the first link I gave you, on page 7 that "The agreement seems to be sufficiently within the experimental errors involved, so that we have reason for confidence in the theoretical picture set forth above". Does that not sound like he was saying, "Meh.....close enough? Or am I wrong? I'll admit MY error and stand corrected if need be.

Again, he said in 1955 that "If one were to imagine that the cosmic radiation had been turned off until a short while ago, the enormous amount of radiocarbon necessary to the equilibrium state WOULD NOT have been manufactured and the specific radioactivity of living matter would be much less than the rate of production calculated from the neutron intensity"
In other words if there was no equilibrium because the cosmic rays had not been flowing into the earth's atmosphere for very long, then that's why you would see a difference, not a constant. Here's the source for that quote. (Libby, Radiocarbon Dating, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955, p. 8).

And also in the first link I posted, Dr. Libby said, "If the cosmic radiation has remained at its present intensity for 20,000 or 30,000 years, and if the carbon reservoir has not changed appreciably in this time, then there exists at the present time a complete balance between the rate of disintegration of radiocarbon atoms and the rate of assimilation of new radiocarbon atoms for all material in the life-cycle"

He has a lot of "ifs" and assumptions. Wouldn't this mean since he found no equilibrium and it takes 20,000 to 30,000 to achieve it, then would that mean the earth is less than 20,000 to 30,000 years old?

/thankyou

I will digest this over the weekend!