Sometimes it slows down to a trickle so that much more water is leaking out the barrel than is coming in; sometimes it goes full blast so that a lot more water is coming into the barrel than is leaking out. Lingenfelter's paper was written in 1963, before the cycles of C-14 variation we described had been fully documented.
Thus, the mere fact that the present rate of water coming in exceeds that of the water leaking out cannot be extrapolated back to a starting time. The point is that fluctuations in the rate of C-14 production mean that at times the production rate will exceed the decay rate, while at other times the decay rate will be the larger.
Figure 19.5, curve C, shows the dipole field strength calculated from measurements of magnetism of lava flows and of artifacts such as pottery and bricks, whose age can be determined.
The curve is roughly fitted to mean values determined about every 500 to 1,000 years...
This nullifies the carbon-14 method as well as demonstrating that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. One suspects that the scientific world would not be using the carbon-14 method if it were so obviously flawed.
Could it be that the whole scientific community has missed this point, or is it another case of creationist daydreaming?
We stick the garden hose in and turn it on full blast.
The water coming out of the hose is analogous to the continuous production of carbon-14 atoms in the upper atmosphere.
The water is coming out of the hose at a steady rate as our model assumed!This argument was popularized by Henry Morris (1974, p.164), who used some calculations done in 1968 by Melvin Cook to get the 10,000-year figure. Whitelaw, using a greater ratio of carbon-14 production to decay, concluded that only 5000 years passed since carbon-14 started forming in the atmosphere!The argument may be compared to filling a barrel which has numerous small holes in its sides.That is, the equilibrium point should have long since been reached given the present rate of carbon-14 production and the old age of the earth.The next step in Henry Morris' argument was to show that the water level in our barrel analogy was not in equilibrium, that considerably more water was coming in than leaking out.