Radiocarbon dates -- young coal and natural gas (things that C14 date too young/old)

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.ReferenceVinogradov, 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.ReferenceTrautman, 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.

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.

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.

Johnfolton, you have been quoting material that contradicts your view of a young earth. 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.

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.

Johnfolton, your posts don't make much sense. Sometimes I think you must be an evolutionist posing as a creationist and trying to be as silly with creationist arguments as he can to make creationists look bad.It would help if you concentrated and posted coherent arguments in readable sentences. The way you mix ideas and sentences makes understanding what you are trying to say very difficult.I would appreciate it if you could restate what you said above to be more understandable. Thanks.By the way, I have obtained radiocarbon dates older than 11,500 years myself.

---

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