Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Potential Evidence for a Global Flood
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(3)
Message 211 of 320 (632193)
09-06-2011 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by JonF
09-06-2011 8:45 AM


Coal and 14C
Yeah, the RATE (Radioisotopes And The Age of the Earth) group. They tested coal and diamond. The amounts they found were "above instrument background" but minuscule. They ignored the fact that 14C can be produced in situ (although we don't know if it was), and they played fast and loose with the meaning of "background". Bottom line: there's no good reason to believe that any coal or diamonds are young enough for their 14C "dates" to indicate their age.
Diamond is used as a source free of 14C for testing instrumentation. With AMS dating the technique is so sensitive that residual amounts of 14C in the machinery become significant, so diamond is used as a material containing no 14C to determine the residual contamination in the instrumentation.(See Taylor and Southon, Use of natural diamonds to monitor 14C AMS instrument backgrounds, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 259:282—287, 2007.) Only dishonesty could claim that this proves a young earth and a global flood.
For an excellent discussion of this see RATE’s Radiocarbon: Intrinsic or Contamination? by EvC poster Kirk Bertsche.
As for the initial claim of a young age from coal, that was a boo-boo on the part of creationists. The claim is often made that "Coal from Russia from the 'Pennsylvanian,' supposedly 300 million years old, was dated at 1,680 years. (Radiocarbon, vol. 8, 1966)" The original source for the false information seems to be Ken Ham, Andrew Snelling, and Carl Weiland’s The Answers Book, published by Master Books, El Cajon, CA, in 1992 (page 73).
But that was just sloppy translation from the Russian. The "coal" was clearly charcoal from a cultural deposit. The original Radiocarbon article makes this very clear, but this fooled creationists and their false claim can be found widely on the web to this day. Source
14C dating does not support a young earth or a global flood, and creationists' claims to the contrary have been repeatedly refuted.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by JonF, posted 09-06-2011 8:45 AM JonF has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 212 of 320 (632197)
09-06-2011 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by Pressie
09-06-2011 9:06 AM


not so fast
Hi Pressie
Trying to do an C14 age determination on a coal seam is so absolutely ridiculously stupid, they could only be published in cartoons, anyway.
Actually there are articles published in Radiocarbon on this.
http://www.radiocarbon.org/
Specifically, when it comes to oil, scientists are looking for sources that are free from carbon-14 contamination in order to make scintillation basins to test for particles IIRC, and have found several sources with carbon-14 levels at the low end of detectability. These sources are also associated with uranium deposits and the radioactivity can "contaminate" the oil in several ways to produce detectable carbon-14.
Also see
CD011.6: C14 date of old oil
quote:
Claim CD011.6:
Coal and oil are supposedly millions of years old. Effectively all of the carbon-14 in a sample would have decayed in that time. But carbon-14 still exists in coal, implying an age of only about 50,000 years.
Minute amounts of contamination from these sources can cause apparent ages around 50,000 years, which is near the limit of the maximum age that carbon dating can measure.
Note (1) that 50,000 years is already older than any YEC concept of the age of the earth and (2) there are other deposits without detectable levels of carbon-14, and thus, even IF there are SOME young deposits of coal and oil, the evidence shows there are others which are even older than the dating limits.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : note

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Pressie, posted 09-06-2011 9:06 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Pressie, posted 09-06-2011 12:50 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 214 by dwise1, posted 09-06-2011 4:04 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 213 of 320 (632224)
09-06-2011 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by RAZD
09-06-2011 9:31 AM


Re: not so fast
Hi RAZD, that is interesting. Thanks for the information.
I still can't see where any real scientist even tried to do C-14 age determinations on either coal seams or oil deposits. They measure the C-14, not the age.
Real scientists try to find deposits free of C-14 contamination in oil, but they seem very difficult to find. It does happen, though. How do the YEC's explain them, or do they just ignore it?
I don't see anything about coal deposits in there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by RAZD, posted 09-06-2011 9:31 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by RAZD, posted 09-06-2011 10:03 PM Pressie has replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 214 of 320 (632251)
09-06-2011 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by RAZD
09-06-2011 9:31 AM


Re: not so fast
Note (1) that 50,000 years is already older than any YEC concept of the age of the earth and (2) there are other deposits without detectable levels of carbon-14, and thus, even IF there are SOME young deposits of coal and oil, the evidence shows there are others which are even older than the dating limits.
Several years ago in a Yahoo groups forum, a creationist had posted/regurgitated the sea-sodium claim pointing out that it showed that the earth could be no older than several millions of years. After educating him on residence times (including aluminum's residence time of 100 years, which H. Morris had mentioned in passing and dismissed with a "huh, wonder what that could mean"), to which he admitted that this claim was wrong and that he shouldn't use it, I posed that same question to him: if your position is that the earth is only about 10,000 years old, then doesn't using a claim that the earth is several millions of years of just disprove your own position? His response was that it didn't matter at all to him if the earth were found to be millions of years old, just so long as it isn't billions of years old like science says it is.
IOW, the creationist goal isn't to come up with the age of the earth or ages that are consistent with their pre-determined conclusion, but solely to disprove science.
That exchange also provided me with a big "a-ha!". I also asked him why he kept using such lame and unconvincing arguments. He responded with, "you only find them unconvincing becauseyou are not already convinced." Aha! So the truth or validity of a creationist claim does not matter, but rather what really matters, the only thing that matters, is that the claim sound convincing. And to whom especially must the claim sound convincing? To those who are already convinced: the creationists themselves.
Also, despite his having admitted that his sea-sodium claim was wrong, a month or two later I saw him still using it on somebody else. When I cut in to remind him of what he had admitted, he immediately left that discussion ... and I think also didn't post for a while. That taught more something about their ethics and tactics. Or did it just reenforce what I had already learned?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by RAZD, posted 09-06-2011 9:31 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


(1)
Message 215 of 320 (632292)
09-06-2011 9:05 PM


Taking a short break
..Hello every...one. Since there seems to be such a problem with the polystrate fossils, (do they exist, what do "real" geologists call them, are they common, whatthey...........do or don't prove? etc...) and since we seem to even have a disagreement with what the majority of geologists even say about strata, I've decided too...step back take a deep breath, and address each one of these issues with some detail in one post. So lets take a break, give me about 48 -- 72 hours and I...will be posting here again.
..Thank you...Brad

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Panda, posted 09-06-2011 9:14 PM Just being real has not replied
 Message 217 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-06-2011 9:48 PM Just being real has not replied
 Message 220 by Pressie, posted 09-07-2011 12:36 AM Just being real has not replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 216 of 320 (632294)
09-06-2011 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Just being real
09-06-2011 9:05 PM


Re: Taking a short break
Taking your time and making a well thought-out post is to be applauded.

Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR
Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Just being real, posted 09-06-2011 9:05 PM Just being real has not replied

Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4421 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 217 of 320 (632299)
09-06-2011 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Just being real
09-06-2011 9:05 PM


Re: Taking a short break
Hello JBR,
Would you please include links to your sources in your reply?
cheers,
BT

I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong
Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot
"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Just being real, posted 09-06-2011 9:05 PM Just being real has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 218 of 320 (632302)
09-06-2011 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Pressie
09-06-2011 12:50 PM


Re: not so fast
Hi Pressie,
I still can't see where any real scientist even tried to do C-14 age determinations on either coal seams or oil deposits.
I don't see where there would be any point to do the age calculation, as other dating methods show the coal deposits to be older than the limits of C-14. Rather they would be interested in finding the causes for the anomalous readings. The correlations of anomalous readings with uranium deposits or surface contamination or with instrument calibrations, for instance.
They measure the C-14, not the age.
Agreed. And before an age is calculated in normal usage, one would also need to know if there were any reservoir affect involved, then the age is adjusted by the calibration curves (see 14C Calibration and Correlations message 1 - these corrections make the actual ages even older than the C14 ages).
Real scientists try to find deposits free of C-14 contamination in oil, but they seem very difficult to find. It does happen, though. How do the YEC's explain them, or do they just ignore it?
I am not aware of any YECist discussing the C14 free oils.
I don't see anything about coal deposits in there.
Some of my old bookmarks no longer work, so I did a little digging and found the TalkOrigins article by Kathleen Hunt that I originally was looking for:
Carbon-14 in Coal Deposits
quote:
Dr. Gove wrote back the very next day, as did one of his colleagues. By sheer coincidence, they are currently studying this exact question. It turns out that the origin and concentration of 14C in fossil fuels is important to the physics community because of its relevance for detection of solar neutrinos. Apparently one of the new neutrino detectors, the Borexino detector in Italy, works by detecting tiny flashes of visible light produced by neutrinos passing through a huge subterranean vat of "scintillation fluid". Scintillation fluid is made from fossil fuels such as methane or oil (plus some other ingredients), and it sparkles when struck by beta particles or certain other events such as neutrinos. The Borexino detector has 800 tons of scintillant. However, if there are any native beta emitters in the fluid itself, that natural radioactive decay will also produce scintillant flashes. (In fact that's the more common use of scintillant. I use scintillant every day in my own work to detect 14C and 3H-tagged hormones. But I only use a milliliter at a time - the concept of 800 tons really boggles the mind!). So, the physics community has gotten interested in finding out whether and why fossil fuels have native radioactivity. ...
...
In the course of this work, they've discovered that fossil fuels vary widely in 14C content. Some have no detectable 14C; some have quite a lot of 14C. Apparently it correlates best with the content of the natural radioactivity of the rocks surrounding the fossil fuels, particularly the neutron- and alpha-particle-emitting isotopes of the uranium-thorium series. Dr. Gove and his colleagues told me they think 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). I now understand why fossil fuels are not routinely used in radiometric dating!
Dr. Gove and his colleagues are currently trying to improve AMS technology to be able to identify certain fossil fuels that have extremely low 14C content. Current AMS techniques have a 14C/C detection limit of about 10^-15 (corresponding to 60,000 yrs), and Dr. Gove's current research, this year, is aimed at improving detectability to 10^-18 (110,000 yrs). ...
And I'll bet they will find coal with levels that would indicate an age of 110,000 years when they do.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Pressie, posted 09-06-2011 12:50 PM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Pressie, posted 09-07-2011 12:31 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 219 of 320 (632314)
09-07-2011 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by RAZD
09-06-2011 10:03 PM


Re: not so fast
Thanks RAZD
That was very interesting!
I really look forward to the work done on AMS and extending the C-14 method to 110 000 years. It would help tremendously in one of the peat projects I'm currently involved in.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by RAZD, posted 09-06-2011 10:03 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 220 of 320 (632316)
09-07-2011 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by Just being real
09-06-2011 9:05 PM


Re: Taking a short break
Just being real writes:
.. and since we seem to even have a disagreement with what the majority of geologists even say about strata, ....
No you don't know have the foggiest what the majority of geologists say about "polystrate" fossils. You don't even realize that there isn't anything like a "uniformatist" geologist. They are called geologists.
Please, when you come back, provide the sources of your claims.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Just being real, posted 09-06-2011 9:05 PM Just being real has not replied

Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


(1)
Message 221 of 320 (633003)
09-11-2011 10:54 PM


Polystrate fossils
Many Geologists say that the strata layers of the geologic column are representative of millions of years of time. In this discussion I will refer to them as uniformitarian geologists, but with the understanding that not all conventional geologists are strict uniformitarians. In opposition is a group of geologists who believe that the strata was laid down during a world wide geologically recent global flood. I will refer to them in this discussion as creation geologists or YEC geologists.
Fossils of single living organisms such as trees (AKA Polystrate fossils) are commonly found piercing through several layers of these strata. These tree fossils (AKA kettlebottoms in mining) are so common in coal beds that they are even a real danger to miners who have been injured or killed by them dislodging and falling on them. They are common enough that in 2000 they came up for review by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission. And I even found an article as recent as 2007 in which one fell and killed Brent Reynolds in a mine in Kentucky.
The question is, how can forests of trees, dinosaurs, fish and other organisms remain protruding from one layer of strata while waiting the enormously long periods of time for the other layers to eventually cover them and then to later fossilize? Some here have purposed that the organisms could have mummified, remained upright and then slowly been covered by strata to later fossilize. I suppose this might be plausible, except for the big problem of natural mummification being such a rare event. I also can’t seem to find any examples of existing organisms in such a mummified state, hanging around for believed millions of years (partially exposed) and thought to still be undergoing such a process. The examples of petrified trees given before, that from time to time are exposed and then re-covered up again, are clearly eroding on the upper portions that are exposed. Yet the examples of thousands of polystrate tree and animal fossils I am referring to are found as well preserved at the top portions as they are at the bottom.
Some of you have already agreed with me that the tree fossils demonstrate a rapid deposition of the strata. This tells me that the only point we are really seeming to be in dispute over is, if they pose a problem for uniformitarian geological thinking. Contrary to claims to the otherwise, most creationists are not ignorant at all to the interpretations of Dawson made a hundred years ago about the fossils. We just think they are as problematic today as they were then. These fossils are often observed crossing through layers of different types of rock and different coal deposits. Are you going to suggest that in those areas where fossils cut through several layers of strata, that they were buried quickly, but in areas with the exact same rock and strata and no polystrate fossils are observed, each layer represents millions of years?
{I've deemed the following green box material to be, at best, marginally on-topic. It belongs somewhere in the "Dates and Dating" forum. In this topic, be cautious about replying to this material - Adminnemooseus
Which then brings us to the question of 14C being found present in coal samples. It was suggested that the creationists doing the testing were dimwitted and did not account for contaminants and other factors or possibly that they just overlooked them. It was also even suggested that the "coal" that was tested is grossly exaggerated, and was actually only "charcoal."
First I would point out that in an article by Dr. Baumgardner, he clearly spells out in detail how they painstakingly took into account any possible contaminants, and the 14C readings they took were completely accurate.
Second, the claim that charcoal is the coal that was tested is blatantly false. In a previous article he clearly says where the samples where obtained from:
quote:
The first set of samples consisted of ten coals obtained from the U. S. Department of Energy Coal Sample Bank maintained at the Pennsylvania State University. The ten samples include three coals from the Eocene part of the geological record, three from the Cretaceous, and four from the Pennsylvanian. These samples were analyzed by one of the foremost AMS laboratories in the world. Figure 1 below shows in histogram form the results of these analyses.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Put off-topic part of message into green box; Add message.

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-11-2011 11:46 PM Just being real has replied
 Message 224 by Coyote, posted 09-11-2011 11:59 PM Just being real has replied
 Message 225 by crashfrog, posted 09-12-2011 12:00 AM Just being real has replied
 Message 226 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-12-2011 12:02 AM Just being real has not replied
 Message 227 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-12-2011 12:03 AM Just being real has not replied
 Message 228 by Pressie, posted 09-12-2011 1:10 AM Just being real has not replied
 Message 229 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-12-2011 1:25 AM Just being real has not replied
 Message 230 by Boof, posted 09-12-2011 1:46 AM Just being real has not replied
 Message 233 by Panda, posted 09-12-2011 5:47 AM Just being real has not replied
 Message 234 by Pressie, posted 09-12-2011 6:20 AM Just being real has not replied
 Message 235 by Granny Magda, posted 09-12-2011 8:05 AM Just being real has not replied
 Message 238 by Percy, posted 09-12-2011 8:57 AM Just being real has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 222 of 320 (633007)
09-11-2011 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Just being real
09-11-2011 10:54 PM


People, be nice now
This certainly is an odd message. There, I've said it, others need not.
Please be nice in your replies - Snark doe not promote quality discussion/debate.
Adminnemooseus

Please be familiar with the various topics and other links in the "Essential Links", found in the top of the page menu. Amongst other things, this is where to find where to report various forum problems.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Just being real, posted 09-11-2011 10:54 PM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Just being real, posted 09-11-2011 11:55 PM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied
 Message 264 by Just being real, posted 09-17-2011 4:36 AM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 223 of 320 (633008)
09-11-2011 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Adminnemooseus
09-11-2011 11:46 PM


Delete
Edited by Just being real, : Deletion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-11-2011 11:46 PM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 224 of 320 (633010)
09-11-2011 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Just being real
09-11-2011 10:54 PM


Coal
If you read my post, above, I am referring to the initial claim by creationists of coal dating to 1680 years, instead of millions of years. This claim was made by Ken Ham, Andrew Snelling, and Carl Weil in The Answers Book, published by Master Books, El Cajon, CA, in 1992 (page 73). This preceded Baumgardner's RATE study by quite a few years.
The Radiocarbon entry is as follows:
Mo-334. River Naryn, Kirgizia 1680 170. A.D. 270
Coal from the cultural layer on the left side of the r. Naryn (Kirgizian SSR), 3 km E of the mourh of the r. Alabuga (41 25′ N Lat, 74 40′ E Long). The sample was found at a depth of 7.6 m in the form of scattered coals in a loamy rock in deposits of a 26-m terrace. According to the archaeological estimations the sample dates from the 5 to 7th centuries A.D. The sample was found by K. V. Kurdyumov (Moscow State Univ.) in 1962. Comment: the find serves as a verification of archaeological data on the peopling of the Tien Shan.
Source
This fooled Kam et al. into thinking coal was being radiocarbon dated to 1680170 years. It was charcoal!
As for the other materials, coal, diamonds, etc. being dated by AMS in the RATE study, that has been satisfactorily dealt with by Bertsche's reply, cited in my above post. Baumgardner doesn't seem to make any headway in his rejoinder that you cited.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Just being real, posted 09-11-2011 10:54 PM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Just being real, posted 09-17-2011 4:37 AM Coyote has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 225 of 320 (633011)
09-12-2011 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by Just being real
09-11-2011 10:54 PM


Re: Polystrate fossils
The question is, how can forests of trees, dinosaurs, fish and other organisms remain protruding from one layer of strata while waiting the enormously long periods of time for the other layers to eventually cover them and then to later fossilize?
Let me just stop you here. Firstly, you mention "trees, dinosaurs, fish, and other organisms" but your examples given are only of trees. That strikes me as significant.
What also strikes me as significant is that trees grow into the ground, so the idea of a tree and its roots incurring itself through several deposited layers of soil, or a trunk finding itself buried under sedimentation doesn't strike me as unusual. Why should it, when we can look around and see it happening now?
And thirdly you appear to be continuing to make the same error in confusing age with process. When I say that my father's pocketwatch is 50 years old, that doesn't mean that it took 50 years to produce. Geological layers can be deposited relatively quickly. That does not in itself prove that every geologic layer is extremely young, or that every geologic layer that is millions of years old must therefore represent a million years of being laid down.
Are you going to suggest that in those areas where fossils cut through several layers of strata, that they were buried quickly, but in areas with the exact same rock and strata and no polystrate fossils are observed, each layer represents millions of years?
No. The layers are both deposited quickly and represent millions of years. Those ideas don't contradict - just because something is old, does not mean that it was created by a slow process. Fast processes occurred millions of years in the past just as they do today.
It was suggested that the creationists doing the testing were dimwitted and did not account for contaminants and other factors or possibly that they just overlooked them.
I think what was suggested, and which any actual, practicing bench scientist can understand, is that "zero" is actually an incredibly difficult thing to measure, and that nearly all instrumentation has some kind of general background reading below which you simply discriminate. Bumgartner, on the other hand, is certainly a dimwit. And his reply is largely non-responsive to Bertsche's extensive demolition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Just being real, posted 09-11-2011 10:54 PM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Just being real, posted 09-17-2011 4:37 AM crashfrog has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024