|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9209 total) |
| |
The Rutificador chile | |
Total: 919,503 Year: 6,760/9,624 Month: 100/238 Week: 17/83 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationist problems with radiocarbon dating | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2363 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
An exchange with Calibrated Thinker from another thread:
Calibrated Thinker writes: Coyote writes: Creation.com has the following in their "Age of the earth" page: Radiometric dating51. Carbon-14 in coal suggests ages of thousands of years and clearly contradict ages of millions of years. 52. Carbon-14 in oil again suggests ages of thousands, not millions, of years. 53. Carbon-14 in fossil wood also indicates ages of thousands, not millions, of years. 54. Carbon-14 in diamonds suggests ages of thousands, not billions, of years. All four of these are absolutely wrong and reflect common errors passed from one creationist website to another. If you want to debate these I'd be happy to oblige--on a different thread. Find one of the radiocarbon threads and post this and I'll show you where each is absolutely wrong. What repeatable, verifiable evidence can you provide that confirms the accuracy of any of the radiometric dating methods currently used today. I feel quite sure that we will have to agree to disagree on the veracity of dating techniques, but if you wish to go through the usual arguments, I can oblige but it is likely going to a repetition of the same debate. I live in a coal mining town in Australia and see first hand a massive volume of evidence for a massive flood event on a whole planet scale. Interestingly atop and below each coal seam are leaves sticks and twigs that are still wood, and look very much like leaves and twigs that you find on the forest floor when bush walking. Obviously the temperature was insufficient at the margins to convert this material to anthracite as is the case only centimetres away.By the way these coal seams are about 150 metres to 200 metres below the surface under a range of sedimentary strata that all have knife edge boundaries in the horizontal plane. My point being that this is typical of rapid deposition. Interestingly enough these are dated by radiometric methods as being late Permian 255 Ma. Amazing that sticks and leaves have lasted that long without deterioration don't you think. The seams are exposed in huge open cut pits. The RD age doesn't fit the logical explanation that the coal and the sticks aren't as old as many would like make out. This is not hearsay, I'm talking about what I see with my own eyes.It is the interpretation that dictates the result. ... Go for it, the dialogue could hopefully prove to be stimulating. I propose this thread to examine creationist claims about radiocarbon dating, and in particular the purportedly young ages that are sometimes found in materials that are actually very old. This is important because these supposedly young ages are being used to "prove" a young earth. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13108 From: EvC Forum Joined: |
Thread copied here from the Creationist problems with radiocarbon dating thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22953 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
Hi Calibrated Thinker! Welcome to EvC!
I had a question about this:
Calibrated Thinker writes: Interestingly atop and below each coal seam are leaves sticks and twigs that are still wood, and look very much like leaves and twigs that you find on the forest floor when bush walking....By the way these coal seams are about 150 metres to 200 metres below the surface... Since a cubic meter of coal weighs 1506 kilograms (more than one and a half tons for us non-metric people), it seems a bit curious to me that sticks and leaves that have been buried under a few hundred tons of rock and coal still look they're fresh from the forest floor. Shouldn't the sticks have been crushed flat and no longer looking like what you find when bush walking? --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2363 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Lets address the C14 in diamonds issue first. Here is a link to a paper on the subject (abstract only; article must be purchased):
Taylor and Southon (2007) Use of natural diamonds to monitor 14C AMS instrument backgrounds R.E. Taylor and John Southon Abstract What this shows is that the residual C14 is a result of instrument background. The entire Taylor and Southon experiment was designed to measure that residual background in their equipment. Additional information can be found here. Edited by Coyote, : SpellingReligious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Flyer75 Member (Idle past 2680 days) Posts: 242 From: Dayton, OH Joined:
|
I really look forward to reading this thread as it develops. From what I can tell in studying these issues the last few months, this topic is really the crux to either sides argument and neither side will bend on it as it's so important.
I've read very little on this so far except for some very basic papers, actually articles so I'll probably be way over my head in this topic but hopefully I learn something. I would like to point one thing out, a presupposition if you will from the YEC side that makes it very difficult to persuade a YEC to believe in millions of years and that is that first and foremost, we believe that the Bible is literally true, that the creation event is true, that Noah's flood is true, and that Babel is true. From what I understand, a creationist says that the problem isn't with the science itself but with the interpretation of the results. Anyway, I'm sure this should be interesting to read and learn from, for me at least. Edit: Coyote, can you put that in laymen's terms please. That looks like Egyptian hieroglyphics to a police officer. That's why I've never been able to understand this issue, every book I've picked up on the shelf, even from the creation side, looks like that. Thanks and sorry for the ignorance. Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2363 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Next lets look at the creationist claim about natural gas:
Natural gas from Alabama and Mississippi (Cretaceous and Eocene, respectively) should have been 50 to 135 million years old. C14 gave dates of 30,000 and 34,000, respectively. (From Creation.com) Analysis: False information due to sloppy research and lack of familiarity with radiocarbon dating. This was another difficult reference to track down because the original source is not provided. It appears that each creationist website just copies from the previous without checking the original citation. (The information in question originates in Radiocarbon, Vol. 8, page 200.) 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). The original article in the journal Radiocarbon includes the following paragraphs describing these two samples: I-1149. Sealy Springs well, Alabama >34,000 Note the little > symbols in front of the dates? This means greater than and denotes that the measured ages reflect the limits of the instrumentation rather than an actual age. In other words, the creationists either goofed and missed the > symbols, or hoped that nobody would check up on their research. Rather than serving as an example of the inaccuracy of radiocarbon dating, this refuted creationist claim serves as another example of the inaccuracy of creationist research. Reference Trautman, Milton A. and Eric H. Willis. Isotopes, Inc. Radiocarbon Measurements V. Radiocarbon, Vol. 8, 1966, pp. 161-203. Note: the above is something I wrote a while back on a DarwinCentral.org blog. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2363 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Coyote, can you put that in laymen's terms please.
In simple terms they put a variety of diamond samples into the Accelerator Mass Spectrometer, knowing that they contained no C14. The results they got showed the residual C14 (extremely tiny amounts) in the machine they were using was simply instrument background. The odd text in the abstract is some of the detail on how they know that this is instrument background rather than C14 in the diamonds. It involves fluctuations in the current feeding their ion source and correlation of the age results with those changing currents. If the C14 was in the diamond the results would not fluctuate with the current, but would remain the same. They concluded that they were seeing "ion source memory" (background) rather than C14 in ancient diamonds. Hope this helps. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member (Idle past 295 days) Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined:
|
Here is some more food for thought, for the attention of Calibrated Thinker.
This is a picture of an actual plant remain found amongst strata that were originally layered between coal measures. I own several very much like it, all of which I gathered myself.
It came from a site at Writhlington in the UK, where old mining works on the Somerset coal measures left great spoil heaps; the layers of shale from in-between the coal seams. Now I'm no expert, but I have to say that these plants don't look like they just came off the forest floor to me. They look a lot more like they've spent the last three hundred million years underground as part of a rock formation. Now I've documented the sort of plant fossil that we can easily find and it's exactly what we would expect to find if the Earth were many millions of years old. Can Calibrated Thinker provide us with some evidence for these "fresh" leaves and twigs? Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2363 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Another flawed creationist claim regarding radiocarbon dating and coal:
Coal from Russia from the Pennsylvanian, supposedly 300 million years old, was dated at 1,680 years. (Radiocarbon, vol. 8, 1966) Source Analysis: False information due to sloppy research. This is a difficult reference to track down because the actual page number is not provided. It appears that each creationist website just copies from the previous without checking the original citation. (The information in question is on page 319.) 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). The original article in the journal Radiocarbon includes the following paragraph describing this sample: Mo-334. River Naryn, Kirgizia 1680 170. A.D. 270 What we have here is no more than shorthand or sloppy translation from the Russian! The coal is nothing more than charcoal from an archaeological deposit. This sample is even included in the section of the report dealing with archaeological samples, and the paragraph discusses archaeological data. The odd use of terms is shown clearly in another radiocarbon date, Mo-353, reported on page 315 of the same article. It reads Charcoal from cultural deposits of a fisher site. The coal was coll. from subturfic humified loam But the term coal in place of charcoal was enough to fool Ken Ham, as well as dozens of subsequent creationists who apparently were salivating to find 300 million year old coal radiocarbon dated to recent times, and who repeated Ham’s false claim without bothering to check its accuracy. The interesting question is where Ken Ham managed to find Pennsylvanian in that short paragraph, and where he dug up the date of 300 million years. This is still another case where a creationist claim about science falls apart when examined more closely. Reference Vinogradov, A.P.; A.L. Devirts; E.I. Dobinka; and N.G. Markova. Radiocarbon dating in the Vernadsky Institute I-IV. Radiocarbon, Vol 8, 1966, pp. 292-323. Note: this is something I wrote a while back as a DarwinCentral.org blog. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2363 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Still another flawed creationist claim:
Bones of a sabre-toothed tiger from the LaBrea Tar Pits (near Los Angeles), supposedly 100,000 to 1000,000 years old, gave a date of 28,000 years. (Radiocarbon, vol. 10, 1968) Source Analysis: The La Brea Tar Pits have been dated to approximately 9,000 to 40,000 years ago. The original article, by Berger and Libby (1968) reported dates on 11 leg bones from sabre-tooth tigers (Smilodon californicus) recovered from the La Brea tar pits (there were 12 dates, as one bone, marked with a * below, was dated twice). These dates were: UCLA-1292A 21,400 560* This creationist claim is a mix of incorrect and incomplete data, and is used in a misleading manner in the original article in an attempt to cast doubt on the radiocarbon dating method. Reference Berger, Rainer and Willard F. Libby. UCLA Radiocarbon Dates VIII. Radiocarbon, Vol 10, No. 2, pp. 402-416. Note: this is something I wrote a while ago for a DarwinCentral.org blog. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2388 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined:
|
quote:I haven't looked into oil dates, and I'm not sure what their "fossil wood" refers to. But the coal and diamond claims relate to the ICR RATE project. I looked into these claims a few years ago, figured out how these folks had misinterpreted the data, and wrote up a detailed critique of the RATE radiocarbon claims. The report is available in at least three places on the web: The American Scientific Affiliation Reasons to Believe TalkOrigins Here is my summary:
Radioisotope evidence presents significant problems for the young earth position. Baumgardner and the RATE team are to be commended for tackling the subject, but their intrinsic radiocarbon explanation does not work. The previously published radiocarbon AMS measurements can generally be explained by contamination, mostly due to sample chemistry. The RATE coal samples were probably contaminated in situ. RATE’s processed diamond samples were probably contaminated in the sample chemistry. The unprocessed diamond samples probably reflect instrument background. Coal and diamond samples have been measured by others down to instrument background levels, giving no evidence for intrinsic radiocarbon.
While some materials, e.g., coals and carbonates, often do show radiocarbon contamination that cannot be fully accounted for, resorting to intrinsic radiocarbon raises more questions than it answers. Why do only some materials show evidence of this intrinsic radiocarbon? Why does some anthracite and diamond exist with no measurable intrinsic radiocarbon? Why is its presence in carbonates so much more variable than in other materials, e.g., wood and graphite? Why is it often found in bone carbonates but not in collagen from the same bone? Since intrinsic radiocarbon would be mistakenly interpreted as AMS process background, why do multi-laboratory intercomparisons not show a much larger variation than is observed? Why does unprocessed diamond seem to have less intrinsic radiocarbon than processed diamond? These and many other considerations are inconsistent with the RATE hypothesis of intrinsic radiocarbon but are consistent with contamination and background. Intrinsic radiocarbon is essentially a radiocarbon-of-the-gaps theory. As contamination becomes better understood, the opportunities to invoke intrinsic radiocarbon will diminish. Most radiocarbon measurements of old materials, including many of shells and coal, can be accounted for by known contamination mechanisms, leaving absolutely no evidence for intrinsic radiocarbon. The evidence falsifies the RATE claim that all carbon in the earth contains a detectable and reproducible ... level of 14C
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2363 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Thanks for that post. I hadn't realized you were the author of that analysis.
It appears very well done. I am particularly interested in the physics you discuss, as that is not my strong point; I do sample collection and interpretation (as an archaeologist), and I have studied those areas most intensely. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Flyer75 Member (Idle past 2680 days) Posts: 242 From: Dayton, OH Joined: |
Hey kbertsche,
AIG made a response to your detailed critique found here:
Are the RATE Results Caused by Contamination?
| Answers in Genesis
Obviously, yours (and Coyote's) knowledge of this subject is way beyond what I could ever even begin to comprehend. Two basic questions though....one, did you ever respond to AIG's response to you? And two, how is the average joe blow out here who never works in this field supposed to know the truth? How do I know that you are right and AIG is wrong, or vice versa for that matter? Also, real quick and I hope this is the right spot to ask this, Henry Morris did a study a few years back that collected all the uniformitarian ways to rate the age of the earth, outside of radiocarbon dating (is that the right word?), and I think he came up with 66 or 67 other means, such as earth's magnetic field decay rate being one of them. He supposedly used chrisitian and secular sources for this study and of the 66, one could come up with an age older then just a few million years old, nothing close to the 4.5 billion that radiocarbon dating comes up with....is he dead wrong, am I wrong, or is there some truth to this? Thanks in advance for your answers. Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4897 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
radioncarbon dating doesn't very far beyond 80k years or so if I remember correctly. (radiometric dating is a more general term which englobes radiocardbon I believe plus others who go far back to the million-billions years range)
AbE We should get Baumgardner here and do Great Debate with KBerstche (I know Baumgardner used to sometimes visits forums like this one when asked to) Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2388 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined:
|
quote:Sorry, but this is false. They did NOT respond to the critique that I referred you to. This shows that you have not read my critique. Please look at the dates on my critique and AiG's response. What AiG responded to was an earlier, much shorter critique that I had posted. The detailed critique that I linked to was written after their response, and incorporates critiques of their response as well as the original RATE report. quote:Yes, that's the link that I gave you! If you read it beside their response, you will see that I have addressed all of their technical points. They have yet to respond to my critique. quote:For the case at hand, they have not responded to my critique. And their earlier response is largely ad-hominem attacks and bald claims that they are correct. Note that they do not show where I'm wrong; they just claim that I'm wrong. In contrast, I tried to show how and where their analysis was wrong. And you can look at the spirit in which each report was done. I tried to avoid any personal attacks on Baumgardner or ICR, and to stick to a technical critique. But in general, this is very difficult for a non-scientist to discern. The best way is to learn enough science to judge for yourself, but this takes time. The second best is to find a good scientist who you trust and ask his advice (a real working scientist, not someone on staff with ICR or AiG). The third best is to assume that mainstream scientists aren't stupid or naive, but have good reasons for their claims, so they are likely correct. If you are not comfortable with the mainstream scientific position but do not feel qualified to judge it, it is best to take a neutral position on the matter. It is dangerous and foolish to oppose the scientific mainstream if you are not a scientist.
quote:I'm not familiar with this study. However, I suspect that he assumed too much "uniformity", assuming things are constant which we know are not. The earth's magnetic field is a classic example. It is now decaying slowly, and if extrapolated backwards at a uniform rate, would yield ridiculous values 4.65 billion years ago. But the geologic record shows us that the earth's magnetic field has actually flipped back and forth many times in a random, chaotic pattern. The assumption of a uniform magnetic field decay rate is wrong. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024