Originally Posted by Peace Warrior
My math is suspect, but C14 rates are growing over 20% more than they are falling by way of decay.
Nonequilibrium RadioCarbon Dating Substantiated, Vol. 2 - Melvin A. Cook, pp. 59 thru 68, (1986)
The same Melvin A. Cook that authored "Science and Mormonism"? Do you have any scholarly (non-apologetic) sources for this claim?
An excerpt from Melvin's wiki article
Dr. Cook was an ardent creationist, and his writings on the subject are frequently quoted or cited by creationists. Cook was not, however, a "young earth" creationist, believing that "the creation was a refashioning and reforming . . . of the surface features of the earth, not the earth as a whole" while "the age of the earth turns out to be about half that claimed by geophysicists, but the solar system is found to be about the same as claimed by earth scientists."In some of his work in this area of creation theory he provided arguments in favor of a 6000 year-old planetary surface. One argument for a "young earth," which he wrote about in his book, Science and Mormonism, was that the atmosphere had not yet reached an equilibrium state with respect to carbon-14 creation/decay, and thus proving that the atmosphere of Earth was in fact not older than 6000 years, although this has been refuted.
The problem with your/his claim is that when we use the carbon-14 dating method to date samples of a known age, we only see errors in the range of 10%+/-. If the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has previosuly been both 10% higher and 10% lower than current levels then that indicates expected variations around a reasonably certain equilibrium level.
Now, we might be in the middle of an increasing trend at the moment, but unless that variation can be shown to exceed historic variations by a statistically significant amount then it is errant to assume that it is anything other than normal fluctuations in a relatively stable system.