Sad what Bible Inerrancy can do to a mind!

Could you please go to Answers in Genesis and got to Q&A and then look up Carbon 14 and tell me what you think?

I can do that! They leave out much more science than they include. There's a lake in Japan called Lake Suigetsu. In 1998, Kitigawa and van der Plicht published a paper (Science, vol 279, pp 1187- 1190) with the results of a study on 250-foot cores from the bottom of the lake. The sediments have alternating dark clay layers (winter) and light diatom layers (spring and summer). They counted about 40,000 of these, and ran 14C dates on 250(!) pieces of leaf, insect wings, and the like. Then they plotted counted age vs 14C age for the whole set, and got a amazingly nice line - it has wiggles, yes, but only wiggles, no reversals. It also matches up very well indeed with the same sort of plot for German tree rings, and with 14C and uranium-thorium dates from coral in Barbados and New Guinea.
Their data also matches up very nicely with data from counting of ice layers in Antarctica, Greenland, the Andes, and Mount Kilimanjaro.
You can access this paper for free by registering at
Science | AAAS - they have free access from 1996 to early 2002 now. There is a LOT of good stuff there, with none of those messy AiG statements of belief before you get published. [This message has been edited by Coragyps, 04-08-2003]

Isn't this off topic for this thread? I'm new around here but I'd be very surprised if you haven't gotten a long and complete thread on the topic already.If not let's start one. It will be fun.

Well I think it's a prime example of the subject of this thread.Not only do they dismissal of dendrochronology in a footnote (wijhtout a serious argument) they don't even explain how it is possible for dendrochronology to be that far out or how any error large enough to save their beliefs is possible.And then they repeat the usual discredited arguments in their "evidences" that supposedly prove that the Earth is not billions of years old - even the "salty oceans" argument which handily ignores the facts (I find it especially amusing that by using other substances you can "prove" that the world is less than 2000 years old).
So no, it is not off topic, it is just more evidence of the sad effects of a belief in Biblical inerrancy.

Hi Drum,You can chalk up every single atheist at this site as being a prophet, and a few others no doubt, as every single one of us knew that you would find a problem with carbon 14 and more than likely either paste a large chunk from a site or post a link.Also that the author of the link wouldn't have a clue about carbon 14 dating [This message has been edited by Brian Johnston, 04-09-2003]

Hi Paul,Sorry I havent got back to you sooner regarding the dating of the Exodus, I have been really busy here and have only managed a few fleeting visits to the forum.I have started a new thread called 'The Exodus: A Dead Issue' to discuss the date of the Exodus and related events. I have not covered every possible theory put forward by scholars, but I have gave a brief overview of the topic and hopefully we can learn a few things from each other.[This message has been edited by Brian Johnston, 04-09-2003]

What's missing is any indication that you yourself have read and understood the information on C-14 dating at AIG. At least a few people have gone to AIG and written here what they think, but what's missing in the equation is what *you* thought of it.I think that now it's your turn. Go to Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory: University of Waikato and read the information about how C-14 dating was developed, how it works, how the modern analysis is performed, how the dates are calibrated, and so forth. Compare and contrast this with the information from AIG in a message to this thread.--Percy

So how do you know the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant?Have tests shown that carbon-14 is increasing?

What about layers that are hot and cold rather than summer and winter?

quote:

---

So how do you know the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant?

---

It has been suggested that you read a bit. The amount has not been constant. That is understood and calibrated for.
If your source suggests that it is assumed to be constant then I suggest that you get another source.

quote:

---

What about layers that are hot and cold rather than summer and winter?

---

It would be helpful if you described what you think is happening, why you think so and what the effects on dating would be.There has been a lot of work done to check and re check dating methods. Against that work you have to supply more than a couple of questions that are based on a lack of knowledge about what you think you are critising. So exactly what are you getting at with this comment? Please clarify.

Sure, why not? How many seasons do you want in a year right after the Big Flood? Twenty-four? Each with about as much sediment (or snowfall, for the ice cores) as a full-length season that we have now? Why not? Why not 44 seasons every year? It'd be simpler to have the Devil put all those layers there to deceive mankind, but hey, let's keep it "scientific," shall we?
Sure, it could be "hot and cold" - like winter and summer.

If you doubt the flood why are there marine fossils found on mountains and in places like the Mid West?

Okay, this is great, precisely the example I was hoping for to tie the C-14 issue in with the thread topic.The thread topic, while expressed provocatively, is actually asking the rhetorical question of why Creationists often approach these issues the way they do. First, Drum makes clear his lack of knowledge about C-14 dating. Second, he doesn't bother reading up on it but instead poses additional uninformed questions. Third, he changes the subject from C-14 dating to the flood and, consistent with the C-14 issue, reveals he has no knowledge of modern geology, either.Is the premise of the thread correct? Is there something about acceptance of Biblical inerrancy that forces a certain approach to knowledge? Or is it something else?--Percy

One thing I noticed quite quickly was the presence in that piece of fiction about 14C was a point I was recently debating by email with an AiG guy after attending a meeting they organised in Edinburgh last year. which cites some "research papers" by Snelling. I checked the references Snelling used, and many of them are of measurements of instrumental background in characterising the performance of new instruments or techniques. That there is a small level of 14C signal from ancient material doesn't mean there is a small level of 14C in the sample. I was told that my comments had been passed on to Snelling, but I've not heard anything and the AiG website hasn't carried any sort of correction on this point.Alan