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.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
™ Version 4.2