Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Radiocarbon dates -- young coal and natural gas (things that C14 date too young/old)
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 1 of 21 (483503)
09-22-2008 7:46 PM


I posted these in another forum, and was asked to include them in a new thread. I hope this is done correctly.
You often see in creationist literature a mention of recent radiocarbon dates in supposedly ancient coal and natural gas, as well as a host of other "failures" of the radiocarbon method. These false claims are repeated without checking from one creationist source to another, and apparently are widely regarded as true by many.
These are typical creationist mistakes, not problems with radiocarbon dating. Here are analyses I did of two of the most common creationist claims. These analyses originally appeared as blogs at DarwinCentral.org.
==================
Claim:
Coal from Russia from the “Pennsylvanian,” supposedly 300 million years old, was dated at 1,680 years. (Radiocarbon, vol. 8, 1966)
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
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.
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.
==================
Claim:
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.
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
From Sealy Springs Well, Cottonwood, Houston County, Alabama. Well yielding salt water and natural gas, probably from Upper Cretaceous Eutaw sandstone. Comment (D.R.B.): sample submitted as control. Infinite age as expected.
I-1150. Maxie Gas Field, Mississippi ” >30,000
From Lower and Upper Cretaceous, and Eocene formations in Maxie Gas Field, Forrest County, Mississippi. Comment (D.R.B.): control sample yielding infitite age as expected.
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.
Edited by Coyote, : No reason given.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add "(things that C14 date too young/old)" part to topic title.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-22-2008 8:04 PM Coyote has replied
 Message 5 by Coragyps, posted 09-22-2008 10:00 PM Coyote has replied

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


Message 2 of 21 (483506)
09-22-2008 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Coyote
09-22-2008 7:46 PM


Topic title too broad
The original posting of the message is here.
The there subtitle is "Radiocarbon dates -- young coal and natural gas". The message is well focused, and I strongly feel that subtitle should be the new topic title at this topic. I could change the title, but I would prefer the topic originator do it.
The title "Typical creationist mistakes" very much leaves the topic defined such that it could go most anywhere. Perhaps we could keep this topic at least confined to radiometric dating issues.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Coyote, posted 09-22-2008 7:46 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Coyote, posted 09-22-2008 9:07 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 3 of 21 (483514)
09-22-2008 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Adminnemooseus
09-22-2008 8:04 PM


Re: Topic title too broad
Change made. I wasn't sure what you meant originally.
Thank you for the help.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-22-2008 8:04 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

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


Message 4 of 21 (483516)
09-22-2008 9:35 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 5 of 21 (483519)
09-22-2008 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Coyote
09-22-2008 7:46 PM


I'm no historian of science, and I have no immediate access to old issues of Radiocarbon, but I'll bet that carbon-14 dating in 1966 was done by burning the sample to carbon dioxide (though they perhaps left the natural gas alone) and counting decays of carbon-14 nuclei with a Geiger counter. 30,000 years age is pretty durn good as a limit if that's the case: five half-lives takes us to 1/32 of modern-day CO2, and I don't think Geiger counters exactly go wild over a glass of Coke.
The partial attributions and "reverse spin" that these "citations" demonstrate are reminiscent of Kent Hovind and his "living snail dated at 2300 years old!!11!" The paper that actual "date" was extracted from was titled Radiocarbon Dating: Fictitious Results from Mollusk Shells. It explained how river-dwelling snails got lots of ancient carbon in their diets. If Hovind (or his source) ever read either the title or the text, he lied when he misquoted the paper.
ML Keith, GM Anderson, Science, vol 141, pp634-637 (1963)

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Coyote, posted 09-22-2008 7:46 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Coyote, posted 09-22-2008 10:11 PM Coragyps has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 6 of 21 (483522)
09-22-2008 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Coragyps
09-22-2008 10:00 PM


Old issues of Radiocarbon
You mentioned you have no access to old issues of Radiocarbon.
They are all now online at:
Radiocarbon -- full text of issues, 1959-2003.
The problem with many of the creationists' use of these, and similar, volumes is that they often don't include the page number, or make some vague claim that spans a dozen or more issues. They are sometimes extremely difficult to track down.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Coragyps, posted 09-22-2008 10:00 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Coragyps, posted 09-22-2008 11:53 PM Coyote has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 7 of 21 (483523)
09-22-2008 10:26 PM


Now that were entering global cooling this information is probably not relevant. What is interesting is another peat study dating thousands not millions of years of age. Interesting tree started growing on the 3rd creation day so when you factor akjv 2 peter 3:8 the peat in Siberia is spot on for creationists young earth.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Armed with funding from the National Science Foundation, Smith and MacDonald led a 22-member international team that also discovered the Siberian peatlands are 2,000 to 3,000 years older than previously thought and may even be responsible for a mysterious spike 9,000 to 11,500 years ago in methane levels in the earth's atmosphere.
"As a plant grows, it takes carbon from the atmosphere," Smith said. "After the plant dies, if it doesn't fully decompose, some of this carbon becomes stored in the ground in the form of peat. This process has been ongoing in Siberia for 11,500 years.
Newsroom | UCLA

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by lyx2no, posted 09-23-2008 9:06 AM johnfolton has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 8 of 21 (483529)
09-22-2008 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Coyote
09-22-2008 10:11 PM


Re: Old issues of Radiocarbon
They are all now online at:
Oh crap, Coyote. Another obstacle to my ever getting any work done....
AbE: but I was right - burned to CO2 and decays were counted.
Edited by Coragyps, : add comment

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Coyote, posted 09-22-2008 10:11 PM Coyote has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 9 of 21 (483564)
09-23-2008 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by johnfolton
09-22-2008 10:26 PM


What One Would Expect
What is interesting is another peat study dating thousands not millions of years of age.
Thousands of years is what one would expect in high latitudes; the peat having formed after the retreat of the glaciers of the last ice age. A peat bog down the road from my house was a shallow pond until 1938 when a hurricane filled it with sand. It then served as a cranberry bog and winter ice skating rink until 1967. The peat is all of 67 mm thick

Kindly
When I was young I loved everything about cigarettes: the smell, the taste, the feel . everything. Now that I’m older I’ve had a change of heart. Want to see the scar?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by johnfolton, posted 09-22-2008 10:26 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by johnfolton, posted 09-23-2008 2:38 PM lyx2no has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 10 of 21 (483617)
09-23-2008 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by lyx2no
09-23-2008 9:06 AM


Re: What One Would Expect
JF said: What is interesting is another peat study dating thousands not millions of years of age.
lyx2 said: aThousands of years is what one would expect in high latitudes; the peat having formed after the retreat of the glaciers of the last ice age. A peat bog down the road from my house was a shallow pond until 1938 when a hurricane filled it with sand. It then served as a cranberry bog and winter ice skating rink until 1967. The peat is all of 67 mm thick
The scientific evidence appears no massive glacier to wipe away previous vegetation in Siberia. This means your backyard peat bogs is like this evidence that the earth is young. right?
--------------------------------------------------------------
During the LGM the climate was extremely cold and dry east of the Scandinavian Ice Sheet. The Siberian coastal areas were polar desert whereas further south in NW Russia the precipitation was adequite to the formation of ice-dammed lakes.
During the LGM the mainland of northern European Russia was free of ice because of the limited extent of the Barents-Kara Ice Sheets. This contradicts with some earlier reconstructions of huge continuous ice cover during the LGM extending from Ireland to the Taimyr Peninsula
Emuparadise 2022
----------------------------------------------------------------
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Climate variability during the last interglacial-glacial cycle in NW Eurasia
by
Matti Saarnisto
Geological Survey of Finland
The ice expansion to reach the last glacial maximum (LGM) took place later than previously thought. The LGM was younger and considerably smaller in extent, and the deglaciation in general was older. The ice expanded from northern Sweden across Finland more than thousand kilometres to its maximum LGM position in NW Russia in less than 10000 years (Fig. 1, Lunkka et al. 2001). The maximum position was reached 17 000 to 18 000 years ago and similarly the ice retreat was completed in less than 10 000 years, which indicate great changes in climate systems. During the LGM the climate was extremely cold and dry east of the Scandinavian Ice Sheet. The Siberian coastal areas were polar desert whereas further south in NW Russia the precipitation was adequite to the formation of ice-dammed lakes. Palaeobotanical evidence, although limited, suggests that the winter temperatures were at least 20 C and summer temperatures 5-11 C lower than today in this region and precipitation was reduced to one third of the present values (Tarasov et al. 1999). During the LGM the mainland of northern European Russia was free of ice because of the limited extent of the Barents-Kara Ice Sheets. This contradicts with some earlier reconstructions of huge continuous ice cover during the LGM extending from Ireland to the Taimyr Peninsula
Emuparadise 2022
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Content "hidden". Interesting but off-topic.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Undid previous edit. Message might sort of be on topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by lyx2no, posted 09-23-2008 9:06 AM lyx2no has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Coyote, posted 09-23-2008 2:58 PM johnfolton has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 11 of 21 (483622)
09-23-2008 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by johnfolton
09-23-2008 2:38 PM


You are quoting material that contradicts your position
Johnfolton, you have been quoting material that contradicts your view of a young earth.
The ice expansion to reach the last glacial maximum (LGM) took place later than previously thought. The LGM was younger and considerably smaller in extent, and the deglaciation in general was older. The ice expanded from northern Sweden across Finland more than thousand kilometres to its maximum LGM position in NW Russia in less than 10000 years (Fig. 1, Lunkka et al. 2001). The maximum position was reached 17 000 to 18 000 years ago and similarly the ice retreat was completed in less than 10 000 years, which indicate great changes in climate systems.
That quote shows that the earth is far older than the 6,000 years claimed by the YEC crowd. Look at those dates! You are already at about 27,000 years if you have an event that took about 10,000 years to occur and was completed 17-18,000 years ago.
And this is the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). What about the ones before that?
Face it, you are failing in your assigned task to provide evidence for a young earth on the other thread, and are doing no better here.
Any comments on topic, which is the two examples I showed where the creationist "literature" is wrong because they either fudge science or make silly mistakes?
(Oh, and I have other examples if you are interested. Creationists just can't be trusted to make accurate statements about science.)
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Content "hidden". Interesting but off-topic.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Undid previous edit.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by johnfolton, posted 09-23-2008 2:38 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by johnfolton, posted 09-23-2008 3:31 PM Coyote has not replied
 Message 13 by johnfolton, posted 09-23-2008 3:40 PM Coyote has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 12 of 21 (483632)
09-23-2008 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Coyote
09-23-2008 2:58 PM


Coyote, You are quoting material that contradicts your position right?
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Coyote, posted 09-23-2008 2:58 PM Coyote has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 13 of 21 (483635)
09-23-2008 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Coyote
09-23-2008 2:58 PM


Coyote, You are quoting material that contradicts your position right?
Coyote,
The evidence is the last glacier did not wipe all the previous vegetation evidence away. You need ice to wipe the slate clean. right?
The evidence is not the most recent glacier but the peat bogs that dated no older than 11,500 years. Now you have a problem the most recent glacier does not support your delusion that previous peat bogs were destroyed from you time lines. right?
P.S. The truth is if the earth was an old one those peat bogs would of dated older if the earth was not an young earth. right?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The ice expansion to reach the last glacial maximum (LGM) took place later than previously thought. The LGM was younger and considerably smaller in extent, and the deglaciation in general was older.
Emuparadise 2022

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Coyote, posted 09-23-2008 2:58 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Coyote, posted 09-23-2008 3:48 PM johnfolton has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 14 of 21 (483636)
09-23-2008 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by johnfolton
09-23-2008 3:40 PM


Re: Coyote, You are quoting material that contradicts your position right?
The evidence is the last glacier did not wipe all the previous vegetation evidence away. You need ice to wipe the slate clean. right?
The evidence is not the most recent glacier but the peat bogs that dated no older than 11,500 years. Now you have a problem the most recent glacier does not support your delusion that previous peat bogs were destroyed from you time lines. right?
Uh, no.
Peat bogs don't matter. You quoted material yourself that went to 27,000 years. Why are you even bothering with 11,500 years when you presented material nearly three times older. You just disproved your entire argument.
This is creation "science" at its best that you are showing us, johnfolton. You ignore hundreds or thousands of data points that contradict your religious belief, and focus on one point that you think supports it. But because you are arguing from belief no amount of evidence we present concerning that one point has any effect on you.
And many of you want to teach this stuff in science classes?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by johnfolton, posted 09-23-2008 3:40 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by johnfolton, posted 09-23-2008 4:11 PM Coyote has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 15 of 21 (483648)
09-23-2008 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Coyote
09-23-2008 3:48 PM


Re: Coyote, You are quoting material that contradicts your position right?
The article about peat bogs said no peat older than 11,500 years I quoted glaciers because non from your time line were capable of erasing peat bogs older than 11,500 years. It all comes out were talking an young universe. right?
P.S. If you have no life older than 11,500 years how pray tell did they date glaciers older. Is not this one more of your beliefs in dating methods based on myths like an old earth. From your myths these dates of 27,000 years were derived not from C14. right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Coyote, posted 09-23-2008 3:48 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Coyote, posted 09-23-2008 4:38 PM johnfolton has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024