Somebody else posting in your name?
"Wrong. 14C accumulates at a known rate, decays at a known rate and is otherwise broken down by radiation at a known rate. So we know its "comings and goings" and are thusly able to equate how long it takes to reach equilibrium."
You didn't list the sinks. Nor did you address neutron flux, or [C]. I really don't care about your equillibrium nonsense. I told you it was useless.
"Hint, this has been done."
Hint, I don't give a damn. Post it if you want. Show your work if you do. Otherwise it's BS like your other posts.
Hey spunkets. Suppose he missed post 80 where you said there was no equilibrium, noted folks use calibrations to determine the conc at some time and posted an authoritative site?
Hey spunkets, do you think he knows what equilibrium even means? There is none here, because it's not a reversible process. Quasi steady state is what folks look for and that depends on the neutron flux, CO2, atmospheric decays and the various sinks for CO2.
I understand you don't care about equilibrium. That's my underlying point. You excuse yourself from data you don't like. That is the point. How much more clear does one have to state it.
Hint, I don't give a damn. Post it if you want. Show your work if you do. Otherwise it's BS like your other posts.
I know you don't. That's why we're here. You don't care but the information is relevant and people are sick to death of being manipulated with the information you like and lied to about the information you don't. People are tired of being abused by your pronouncements on the EVO side which have all the credibility of "bleeding" people to cure them. And no more than that. It isn't that the data isn't relevant - it disproves your erroneous dates, just as do things like Salination levels of the ocean which build at a known rate and yet are below 4% if memory serves. Billions of years would have salination levels so high in the oceans that they would be like the dead sea. But, again, not something we care to discuss - irrelevant - and "not used". No kidding. Not used in the same way we know the rate of Earth's rotation slows by 1/1000th of a second every day, reversing this does damage far sooner than "billions of years". Do the math. Sure, I know it isn't used. Neither is the known rate of decay of earth's magnetic field, when reversed gives you another problem. Not used - we know. When we start adding all these "not used" things up to cumulative effect we get a picture of a planet that not only isn't "billions" or even "millions" of years old - it isn't supportable. That's why these things "aren't used". It isn't bs, it just isn't convenient to your claims. I won't call them arguments..