Dating from the Adams and Eves Threads

That is indeed an interesting find. It is unfortunate it doesn't appear to have been published properly. It hasn't been scrutinized carefully by anyone it appears. This is especially true given some of Snellings past history.However, there isn't enough information to answer all concerns. And the concerns need to be answered just because this is such an interesting find. It is, indeed, anomolous. It has to be examined very carefully and reproduced as it has to stand up against many 1,000's of results that contradict it. It is too bad it doesn't seem to have been done very throughly or examined very carefully.The questions that need to be answered are:1) Is the wood actually "encased" in the basalt?I have been on just cooling lava flows in Hawaii. The Ohi trees there are resistant to heat but it is rare that any are intact. In the place where I walked the only trace of trees of about 10 to 15 cm diameter were the empty glowing holes. They had been completly and totally destroyed between the intial flow and 3 days later when the lava was solid enough on top to be safe.The fact that the initial samples were lost makes this difficult to determine. The other problem is that coreing into it makes it impossible to tell what exactly was found.I can't tell what wood was sampled from where and, of course, one of the dates, at least, is at the upper end of where C-14 dating can be used. A million year old sample can date at the end when small quantitites of C-14 are produced in place.Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that Snellings has done a very careful job nor has he presented this information in a useful manner. At face value it appears to be an interesting anomoly that should be reproduced. With his past history it may not be wise to take Snellings at face value however.

Re the link;
Don`t you think it a tad ironic, even hilarious, that to disprove radioactive dating and champion the cause of Yecism, that the samples were sent for 'accelerator mass spectrometry' analysis? And that the results were held up as---um--gospel?

Nonsense. Show me where she even implies such a ridiculous thing.

Myth 1. Such and such carbon dating of such and such fossil came up with such and such result that is against evolution, or the age of the earth, or dating methods.Response 1. Fossils cannot be carbon dated for the simple fact that carbon dating can only be done on organic substances. Fossils are inorganic and thus will always return ages at the extreme end of the capable range of carbon dating. You can carbon date a plastic spoon but it isn't going to tell you the age of the spoon.Myth 2. The presense of C14 in coal, diamond, oil, fossil disproves carbon dating because there should be no C14 left in things that are millions of years old.Response 2. C14 is known to be created when a free neutron collides with a nitrogen atom creating 1 C14 atom and 1 hydrogen atom. The primary place where this occures is in the atmosphere where nitrogen atoms are constantly being bombarded with solar radiation. The source of free neutrons though is not exclusive to solar radiation. The regular radioactive decay of elements in the earth also create them which causes there to be an insignificant amount of C14 pretty much everywhere.Myth 3. Organic material of fluvial or marine origin cannot be carbon dated.Response 3. While there are known issues with carbon dating of marine or fluvial organisms these issues do not automatically forefit the reliability of the method. This is particulary true with regards to the lake varves which are a topic of this thread. The strongest reason to suspect that the carbon dating of organics in the varves is correct is that they correlate quite precisely with the the number of the varve it is present in as you count from the top. If the samples were contaminated in any way they would be no reason to expect continuity with regards to the ages with depth nor would there be any reason to expect that the carbon age would relate to the varve count.Myth 4. Problems with carbon dating cast doubt on all other radioactive dating methods.Response 4. This is probably the single biggest problems that creationists have. As soon as you bring up dating methods they trot out carbon dating as if that was the only way we knew the earth was old. The radioisotope methods for dating crystal rocks operate on a much stronger foundation and with elements of long enough half lives to be useful.The biggest difference between carbon dating and other radioisotope dating that I can think of is that the initial conditions can be shown to be true by very simply chemistry. What this means is that while carbon dating has a margin of error that depends upon the amount of C14 in the environment, no such problem exists for the methods we use to date rocks. During the crystalization of a rock the chemical makeup of the crystal REJECTS including the daughter element of the radioactive isotope as part of the crystal matrix. Therefore we know that if that crystal has not beel altered since it was formed (and we can tell) that it had a starting condition of ~0% daughter and ~100% parent isotope.So the message to creationists is, you can continue to whine about the myths about carbon dating and continue to be wrong about it; but even if you were right it doesn't matter. The age of the earth is still validated very convincingly with other methods. Even if those methods were shown to be in error someday, there is plenty of evidence outside of radiochronology that invalidates a 6000 year old earth and a literal interpretation of Genesis. Those are for another day though in another thread.Thanks,This message has been edited by Jazzns, 12-15-2005 08:58 AMThis message has been edited by Jazzns, 12-15-2005 08:59 AM

---

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

I understand your reluctance to believe anything stated by YECs, but I myself have seen (and smelled) carbonized wood fully encased in Columbia River Basalts. So at least that part of the story is definitely possible.I suspect the amount of moisture a tree holds in it's trunk has something to do with how quickly or how completely it will burn.

Carbon-14 in Coal Deposits
by Kathleen Hunt
Copyright © 2002
[posted: May 22, 2002]Other Links:
Creation Science Prophecy: Carbon 14 Dating
A creationist source that makes an argument about anomalous 14C in coal deposits.
The Problem:Accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS), a sensitive radiometric dating technique, is in some cases finding trace amounts of radioactive carbon-14 in coal deposits, amounts that seem to indicate an age of around 40,000 years. Though this result is still too old to fit into any young-earth creationist chronology, it would also seem to represent a problem for the established geologic timescale, as conventional thought holds that coal deposits were largely if not entirely formed during the Carboniferous period approximately 300 million years ago. Since the halflife of carbon-14 is 5,730 years, any that was present in the coal at the time of formation should have long since decayed to stable daughter products. The presence of 14C in coal therefore is an anomaly that requires explanation.The Solution:Talk.origins' Kathleen Hunt wrote an e-mail to a noted expert on AMS and 14C dating. The results of her correspondence are reproduced below:Hey, I really lucked out with my first email to an AMS researcher. Got a very informative reply right away.The short version: the 14C in coal ---"is probably"---- produced de novo by radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium isotope series that is naturally found in rocks (and which is found in varying concentrations in different rocks, hence the variation in 14C content in different coals). -----"Research is ongoing"---- at this very moment.(The fungi/bacteria ------"hypothesis"---- [that 14C in coal is produced by modern microorganisms currently living there --Ed.] -----"may also be plausible"-----, but ------"would probably"----- only contribute to inflation of 14C values if coal sits in warm damp conditions exposed to ambient air. There is also growing evidence that bacteria are widespread in deep rocks, -----"but"---- it is ----"not clear"----- that they could contribute to 14C levels. ---"But"----- "they may"---- (contribute to 13C.)Carbon-14 in Coal DepositsNote: Katheline Hunts language is inconclusive not conclusive. Sorry bud, what Katheline thinks is not scientific evidence. .This message has been edited by The Golfer, 12-15-2005 12:45 PM

Yep. C14 is created via radioactive decay. Well known and it is the cause of the C14 presence in oil, coal, diamonds, and just about anything that contains carbon anywhere on the surface of the earth.How you think this helps your case I am unsure.

---

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

You'll raise an eyebrow or two quoting with that many ellipses around here, Golfer. I think that you are misunderstanding what Dr Hunt wrote: What she is saying here is that all the 14C now in this ancient coal is from such decay. Most all the C-14 that was incorporated into that coal from the plant material that formed it was, indeed, from atmospheric CO2 - that C-14, though, dacayed to immeasurably low levels within 100,000 years of burial, or about 299,900,000 years ago. So yes, Hunt is saying that the C-14 in coals today is from uranium/thorium byproducts, but she's not implying that their original C-14 was from anything other that atmospheric sources, just like it is today.AbE: "is probably" and the like is the way they teach us to phrase everything in grad school in the sciences. It's a little oddity, like the way lawyers always say "alleged," even when everyone around knows perfectly well who done it.This message has been edited by Coragyps, 12-15-2005 01:12 PM

Reading over the quote that Golfer is eliding I think he didn't do any damage to what it was saying.Golfer thinks it helps his case I guess even if it doesn't.

Coragyps: Dr. Gove and his colleagues told me the evidence so far demonstrates that 14C in coal and other fossil fuels is derived entirely from new production of 14C by local radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium series. Many studies verify that coals vary widely in uranium-thorium content, and that this can result in inflated content of certain isotopes relevant to radiometric dating (see abstracts below). why fossil fuels are not routinely used in radiometric dating!Golfer: They think, Kathelines faith based statement (I now understand) still is not scientific evidence.They can not say they know because they don't have the evidence.Without this evidence you can not sandwich date fossils or infer African Michondrial Eve is 200,000 years is a scientific fact.

Since the dating of fossils older than 4o to 50 thousand years has nothing to do with this: yes you can.

did you know that originally one either wrote in diminutive or in capital? they were two separate greco-latin fonts. capital tended to be strictly used on stone monuments (because it was easier to carve) and diminutive tended to be used on written documents (because it was easier to write). the romans were really the first to use capitals on other kinds of signage that we know about. you can see them painted on the walls of pompei. but to my knowledge they never mixed the two. i think it was early germanic scholars who did that.

---

אָרַח

Ah, Golfer, but you fail to appreciate that Hunt and I, among quite a few others, don't hold this quirk of oil and coal in isolation. There are quite a few threads in this forum alone that show quite plainly that the fifteen or so dating methods that do, in fact, make dating things like that possible really do agree on ages of things like that.

...addressing: Message 19Also, how does the origin of radioactive carbon stand in the way of the molecular clock used to calculate the date of M. Eve?This message has been edited by Jazzns, 12-15-2005 04:11 PM

---

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

0Ned, Thats a faith based statement. It not scientific evidence. Just saying its so is not scientific evidence. The problem is C-14 is found in coal and oil beneath sediments dating millions of years old by a multitude of other reliable dating methods.Scientists can not yet prove scientifically thorium in the natural is capable of produce C-14 in the earth. Without scientific evidence to support the evolutionist belief it is so, its only a statement of faith.Its all the evolutionist has, is the belief this be so. Yes you can date the earth to be old, but that does not mean it has anything to do to in respect to the fossils age.Fossils are formed by catastrophy a burial event by something we all agree appears old. The only problem is the evolutionists make this leap of faith that the fossils that got buried too are old.It might well be that the earth in its beginning was created to appear old. I don't believe creationists have a problem that God created the earth to appear old from its beginnings.The problem: Science as yet can not prove thorium or neutrino's are capable of providing the energy necessary to produce C-14 within the earth.This has nothing to do about the earth appearance of age but that fossils are being dated by the appearance of age in spite of the scientific evidence in respect to the fossils age to the contrary.This message has been edited by The Golfer, 12-15-2005 07:09 PM