Questions Creationists Never Answer-still waiting!

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
...

​

"2) If ALL of the various radiometric dating methods are wrong, then how is it that they are ALL wrong in such a way that they are almost always remarkably consistent with one another? (And we understand the conditions under which they give strange dates; i.e. they are predicted)"

​

--I would argue that the actual 'dates' are consistant, though the published dates, no doubt would be consistant, for one, who knows how many times they have to date the thing to get the date they want, and besides this is a quote I have from a debate with a university professor and a creationist from the AiG organisation, with no comment from the professor:

​

Also from a peice of one of my earlier rebutal articles with many quotes:

​

When you want a rock dated you have to 'Fill out a paper that says what strata you found it in, what fossils you found near it, and what age it should be. You send it into them and they date it, they get ranges all over the place.' Not consistent at all 'And then they go look it up in the little book about the information that you've given them and then they say, ok this information says that these dates in the book are the right ones and those are the dates they give you.'

---

This is pretty funny stuff, TC. Where did you get it? (Never mind just a rhetorical question, I think we all know) This is nonsense. No one is "required" to give an estimated date. It is sometimes asked so that the proper method is used and that the instruments can be calibrated.

quote:

---

... (section snipped)

---

THis section is the best:

quote:

---

A survey of the 15,000 radiocarbon dates published through the year 1969 in the publication, Radiocarbon, revealed the following significant facts:27 a. Of the dates of 9671 specimens of trees, animals, and man, only 1146 or about 12 percent have radiocarbon ages greater than 12,530 years.

---

And?

quote:

---

b. Only three of the 15,000 reported ages are listed as infinite.

---

And? (Hey, do you think there might be a reason for this?)

quote:

---

c. Some samples of coal, oil, and natural gas, all supposedly many millions of years old, have radiocarbon ages of less than 50,000 years.

---

Some, sure. What is the problem with this?

quote:

---

d. Deep ocean deposits supposed to contain remains of the most primitive life forms are dated within 40,000 years.

---

Hey, I've got some pretty primitive stuff living in my yard. This statement is completely meaningless.

quote:

---

Coal from Russia from the Pennsylvanian, supposedly 300 million years old, was dated at 1,680 years. (Radiocarbon, vol. 8, 1966).

---

C'mon, the Russkies are not that dumb. Anyone who uses radiocarbon methods to date Pennsylvanian coal needs to have his geology degree rescinded.

quote:

---

"3) Why do we never find flowering plants, including trees, grasses, etc., in the lower levels of the geologic column if all fossils were laid down in one Biblical Flood event?"
--Actually it is evident by pollen grains found in pre-cambrian strata that they were present before they even existed..

---

These have been debunked elsewhere. You never did answer my question here as to if there is pollen, why do we have not branches, roots, leaves, flowers or bark in the Hakatai Shale. Why do they only show up in the end of the Phanerozoic (along with pollen)? Why is it that only one creationist study found these pollen grains? I thought you guys were big on repeatability...

​

[This message has been edited by edge, 01-28-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"No one is "required" to give an estimated date. It is sometimes asked so that the proper method is used and that the instruments can be calibrated."
--But wait a second? I thought you said all the dates given are 'so consistant with each other', thus it should not make a difference if you use any method to date anything, because 'they are almost always remarkably consistent with one another' (your own words and your argument).

---

Let me explain. If someone sends me a sample requesting a radiocarbon date, but they also think that the sample is in the area of 100 million years old, it means that they are misapplying a method. At the same time, if I am working with a sample that has a large amount of C14 in it, I might be able to treat it differently than if there is an extremely small amount to get more accurate or less expensive results.

quote:

---

"... (section snipped)"
--In other words 'No comment'.

---

Actually, "I don't have time right now," but want to let people know that there is more in the original.

quote:

---

"And?"
--They are supposed to be the same age I believe.

---

No. Some things are 50ky old others are 12 ky old. Some are less and some are more. I question your data, but that is immaterial. It is not necessary to have dates spread evenly across the possible range of carbon dates. If you have some conclusion, from your observation, then we could discuss it.

quote:

---

"And? (Hey, do you think there might be a reason for this?)"

​

--Ofcourse...theres no detectable carbon left, which is what we should find in any dino bone or any of the such in early strata, but wait 'they are almost always remarkably consistent with one another' aren't they?

---

Usually we don't date dinosaur bones by radiocarbon methods. There are more appropriate methods. Do you understand what is going on here? Radiocarbon methods are only used to maximum dates of about 35 to 50 thousand years. This has to do with the relatively short half-life of C14. At some point we cannot measure the amount of C14 remaining in the material. So, indeed there would be lots of samples that date to infinity... if we didn't recognize them as greater than 50ky old.

quote:

---

"Some, sure. What is the problem with this?"

​

--It means the dates are drastically non-consistant, if another radiometric dating method gave a date of millions, carbon 14 levels should be undetectable.

---

How do you know that oil and gas cannot be generated in less than 50ky? Where do you get your information on this? (Never mind, I think I know). How do you know that there is not some partitioning of the oil or gas by C14 content as it migrates? How do you know that C14 is not differentially partitioned into one or another phase of the crude oil?

quote:

---

"Hey, I've got some pretty primitive stuff living in my yard. This statement is completely meaningless."

​

--This means...the oceanic sediments and life they dated...isn't millions of years old according to C14 dating.

---

What do you mean by primitive? I'm sure there are primitive organisms being deposited on the ocean floor as we speak. This does little to refute radiometric dating or evolution.

quote:

---

"C'mon, the Russkies are not that dumb. Anyone who uses radiocarbon methods to date Pennsylvanian coal needs to have his geology degree rescinded."

​

--So your agreeing that radiometric dating methods do not produce dates at all consistant with one another?

---

Absolutely. Some rocks are old, some are young. I wouldn't expect them to give the same radiometric date. If I used Carbon14 methods to date Carboniferous deposits I would be laughed out of the profession. Radiocarbon dates CANNOT be done on material older than about 50,000 years. It would be a gross misapplication of method. It would be like using a calendar to time the Kentucky Derby.

quote:

---

"These have been debunked elsewhere."
--No you didn't this is what you have been saying all throughout my posts when I make reference, you discredit it automatically because of your pre-consieved idea, I have not seen a successful rebutal to them as of yet.

---

There have been rebuttals but they have been counter-rebutted with a dismayed denial. The real question is why has the experiment not been repeated by non-creationists (or possibly even by creationists for all I know)? If I was a creationist I would go right back out to the Grand Canyon and reproduce the work while having my protocols vetted by a third party.

quote:

---

"You never did answer my question here as to if there is pollen, why do we have not branches, roots, leaves, flowers or bark in the Hakatai Shale. Why do they only show up in the end of the Phanerozoic (along with pollen)? Why is it that only one creationist study found these pollen grains? I thought you guys were big on repeatability...

​

--Actualy much of your multi-million year old coal is composed of bark, and I beleive flowering plant vegetation.

---

That's an answer? I don't think anyone disputes this. Do you think maybe evolutionists didn't notice this?

quote:

---

And there is multiple sources for these pollen grains, and I beleive some aren't even creationists.

---

But all of those sources have bark, leaves, flowers, roots, etc. Where are the fossils of these in the Hakatai Shale? There must be an explanation why they show up in the late Mesozoic and Cenozoic (with pollen) but not in the Precambrian...I really apologize for taking advantage of you on these issues. My point is that, scientists have thought of these things and accounted for them. You cannot learn enough geology from reading a few websites to make sound points on a message board such as this. The application of radiocarbon methods to late Paleozoic coal is an example. Except by accident, no one but a creationist would do this. In fact, it expresses exactly why some labs will ask what the expected age of a sample is.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Let me explain. If someone sends me a sample requesting a radiocarbon date, but they also think that the sample is in the area of 100 million years old, it means that they are misapplying a method."
--So you agree that all the dating methods are not consistant?

---

(Sigh)No. I mean that I would use different methods to date different ages. Sort of like using a stopwatch or a calendar.

quote:

---

"At the same time, if I am working with a sample that has a large amount of C14 in it, I might be able to treat it differently than if there is an extremely small amount to get more accurate or less expensive results."

​

--Is this about expenses or accuracy? If your argument revolves around consistant accurate dates claimed by the different radiometric dating methods, that means that if you date something with say the Potassium/Argon or Uranium232 (I'm not sure what the number was) and get ranges in the hundreds of millions or so, then that should easilly and is 'required' that Carbon14 should be near non-existant in your sample, is this not correct?

---

Unless there has been contamination.

quote:

---

"No. Some things are 50ky old others are 12 ky old. Some are less and some are more. I question your data, but that is immaterial. It is not necessary to have dates spread evenly across the possible range of carbon dates."

​

--It is necessary to give a relatively even date, instead of all over the chart, meaning if you find a fossil, and then find a fossil lying next to it, and they are 30,000 year diffence, that means that you have to preserve one of them for those 30,000 years without such decay, and a landslide is not acceptable for all these cases, as strata layering is consistant throughout both samples.

---

Do you have a specific example that you'd like to discuss? This was not the point of the original post. You said that most C14 dates are less than some 12ky old as if that meant something.

quote:

---

"If you have some conclusion, from your observation, then we could discuss it."
--What would you be making reference to, conclusion to what observation?

---

Never mind.

quote:

---

"Usually we don't date dinosaur bones by radiocarbon methods."

​

--I can see why, they despise those young dates.

---

Yeah, it couldn't have anything to do with the half life of C14.

quote:

---

"There are more appropriate methods"
--You mean more 'accurate' methods?

---

No. I mean more appropriate.

quote:

---

I thought they were all appropriate, as they would be if they all gave consistant dates wouldn't they.

---

For different ages and materials, yes.

quote:

---

"Radiocarbon methods are only used to maximum dates of about 35 to 50 thousand years. This has to do with the relatively short half-life of C14."
--This is exactly why when you date anything that is supposedly older than 50-70k years dated by another method or the fossil record/geologic column,(depending on who your talking to) then you should have an infinite date, ie, undetectable carbon or unmeasurable quantities of radioisotops of the nuclei in your sample.

---

Infinite in the sense that the divisor is an unmeasurable number.

quote:

---

"So, indeed there would be lots of samples that date to infinity... if we didn't recognize them as greater than 50ky old."

​

--Yes there should be abundant samples of these quantities of radioisotopes of carbon 14, but as you saw only 3 of the 15,000 gave this 'date'.

---

As I said, "...if we didn't recognize them as being older than 50ky old." Then we use other methods to get a date.

quote:

---

...
"How do you know that there is not some partitioning of the oil or gas by C14 content as it migrates? How do you know that C14 is not differentially partitioned into one or another phase of the crude oil?"

​

--For one, where is it going to migrate, espicially coal, as it is a solid material. So your argument is that, since these dates seem to be inaccurate, therefor they had to have been contaminated by partitioning of the rocks, interesting you bring this up as it is one of the assumptions involved in the various 'dating' methods.

---

For one, I only mentioned oil and gas, not coal. Second, we do know something about oil, gas and coal compared to biotite or pyroxene. Give us just a little bit of credit, okay?

quote:

---

"What do you mean by primitive?"
--Primitive as in early in the geologic column primitive.

---

Good, then give us an example of a primitive organism being deposited on the ocean floor today.

quote:

---

"I'm sure there are primitive organisms being deposited on the ocean floor as we speak. This does little to refute radiometric dating or evolution."

​

--Key words 'deep ocean deposits', they werent just picked up off the ocean floor, technically I am not refuting evolution, I am refuting the mechenism that is given to support Evolution geologically speaking.

---

Good, then you realize that these deposits may not be related to modern depositon.

quote:

---

"Absolutely. Some rocks are old, some are young."
--Which means that the old rocks should get the old dates, and the young rocks should get the young dates.

---

Darn, caught in the act! Really we have no reason at all to assume that there are some old rocks and some young rocks! TC just exposed a centuries-old geology fraud.

quote:

---

"I wouldn't expect them to give the same radiometric date. If I used Carbon14 methods to date Carboniferous deposits I would be laughed out of the profession."
--You seem to be missing the point, if your going to date Carboniferous deposits and you get even the slightest ioda of measurable Carbon 14, you have a massive problem. If your statement is true, then it again should be taking a look at a little bit of bias found in anyone that would 'laugh you out of the profession' for getting a date as such.

---

Again, do you have a specific example? I really don't have much confindence that a sample of Pennsylvanian coal would have any original C14 left, though contamination is a very good possibility. Perhaps this explains the preponderance of younger dates that you seem to think means something. Maybe the possibility of contamination gets higher as the ages get older. Couldn't be that, hunh?

quote:

---

"Radiocarbon dates CANNOT be done on material older than about 50,000 years."
--Then why can we get even measurable samples if they are eons older than 50,000 years?

---

Contamination. In virtually every case I have seen creationists present here and elsewhere the chain of custody and preparation procedures were so suspect that they were laughable.

quote:

---

"It would be a gross misapplication of method. It would be like using a calendar to time the Kentucky Derby."
--Again, if your getting measurable quantities of RadioCarbon 14 in your sample, then obviously using logic, it is younger than 50,000 years. Using your analogy this is like getting yourself a date of 100 days for your Kentucky Derby, obviously histerically 'out of the ball park'.

---

Do you know how easy it is to get C14 contamination?

quote:

---

"The real question is why has the experiment not been repeated by non-creationists (or possibly even by creationists for all I know)? If I was a creationist I would go right back out to the Grand Canyon and reproduce the work while having my protocols vetted by a third party."

​

--If I lived near the Grand canyon I would like to do this myself so that I could obtain it as an absolute in my mind that this is true, along with every other aspect of assertion as I obtain speculation on any source that claims anything drastically relevent. But the fact is that these have already been found, it would not be the smartest thing to go do the test all over again if a conclusion has already been met.

---

But your integrity has been questioned! Don't you think that is reason enough to go out and reproduce the experiment? (Maybe this is a real differnce between creationists and scientists.) The only conclusion that the disinterested observer could make is that since the experiment is irreproducible it was erroneous. And since the creationists have not attempted to reproduce it, they probably know.

quote:

---

"That's an answer? I don't think anyone disputes this. Do you think maybe evolutionists didn't notice this?"
--Then why do they place the date of flowering plant Evolution at the Cretateous period when Coal formations are found in the Carboniferous? 230,000,000 years before they supposedly evolved.

---

Umm, TC? Those were not flowering plants...(sigh) Now, I am not a biologist, but to me the flowering plants are angiosperms. If I am wrong just substitute angiosperm for flowering...

quote:

---

"But all of those sources have bark, leaves, flowers, roots, etc. Where are the fossils of these in the Hakatai Shale? There must be an explanation why they show up in the late Mesozoic and Cenozoic (with pollen) but not in the Precambrian..."

​

--Being found in the same coal together, this would be expected from a Global Flood as thse formations were burried all at once, quicker than normal. Being burried in sedimental layers would be different however, as then factors of burrial would then be taken into consideration, from the time gymnosperms appear in sediments, to the time angiosperms appeard, could have consisted of days or less than weeks of time for burrial. By the way, I cannot find anything on a Hakatai Shale, where can I get information on this shale deposit.

---

The Hakatai Shale is the alleged location of your bogus pollen grains. It is a Precambrian shale and the pollen grains found in it are identical to the local plant life of today. Think there's any difference in the ecological setting of the modern GC and the Hakatai Shale? Nah!

quote:

---

"My point is that, scientists have thought of these things and accounted for them."

​

--So you agree that Dating methods are not consistant then, so far it seems to be the only conclusion that uses the slightest of logic.

---

Sure, that's exactly what I said. Try reading my posts again.

quote:

---

"You cannot learn enough geology from reading a few websites to make sound points on a message board such as this."
--I would hold back the critisism untill conclusions are made, it would be unwize to do so.

---

This is not criticism. It is a statement of fact. You are not the first and you will not be the last to try it.

quote:

---

"Except by accident, no one but a creationist would do this. In fact, it expresses exactly why some labs will ask what the expected age of a sample is."
--You have it backwords, inaccurate conclusion on your part, as I have explained exactly why 'some labs will ask what the expected age of a sample is'.

---

Ah, good. Perhaps you will tell us how many radiometric dates you have conducted and we can compare notes on lab forms. Consider this a direct question.

​

[This message has been edited by edge, 01-29-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"(Sigh)No. I mean that I would use different methods to date different ages. Sort of like using a stopwatch or a calendar."
--My point is, that if your going to date something that is 100 million years old, and you happen to find measurable quantities of C14 radioisotopes still 'decaying' in your sample, then the calender is drastically and utterly flawed.

---

I don't quite know how to make this any simpler. Maybe this: When the C14 is gone, you need to use a different method. Like K-Ar.

quote:

---

"Unless there has been contamination."
--I might understand contamination giving you less quantities of carbon, but not more, how will you contaminate with new radioactive C14?

---

So there is no C14 in the air? Skin? Smoke? Plastic? As the dates get older and older these tiny quantities become exceedingly important.

quote:

---

"Do you have a specific example that you'd like to discuss? This was not the point of the original post. You said that most C14 dates are less than some 12ky old as if that meant something."
--I already gave you one, 15,000 different samples.

---

I asked for an example not a sample. I was talking about a specific analysis that you know of where you have a problem with the date.

quote:

---

"Yeah, it couldn't have anything to do with the half life of C14."
--What are you talking about? The Half life of radioactive elements,eg. C14, is the method of decay rate. They measured it in a laboratory for about 3 days and the Half life of C14 is about 5730 years, so dinosaur bones must contain an infinite age, unmeasurable quantities of radioisotopes, meaning there is a problem if you find this.

---

Exaclty. That is why we do not use radiocarbon dates for dinosaur bones. If we did we would have a bunch of "infinite" dates. I'm sure its been done, perhaps by mistake, but never reported.

quote:

---

"No. I mean more appropriate."
--If you can sufficiently explain to me why there there are more appropriate dating methods that can't be falsified, I will drop my argument.

---

I just did this above. Beyond a certain age the C14 is immeasureable. Then we go to a different method. There are numerous techniques. It seems that you think radiocarbon is the only one.

quote:

---

"For different ages and materials, yes."
--So the stuff we find that is millions of years old can't be any older than 50,000 years?

---

If you measured it by radiocarbon. If you used other methods, you could get older dates. It would be the opposite problem of creationists measuring the age of historic volcanic eruptions using K-Ar techniques. It just doesn't make sense. I know you don't understand this so why don't you look up some references on radiometric dating?

quote:

---

"Infinite in the sense that the divisor is an unmeasurable number."
--Then why do we not find this?

---

Make that an unmeasureably LOW number. First, not many people make this mistake. Second the results are not reported because they make no sense and the researcher is emabarrased at using an inappropriate method.

quote:

---

"As I said, "...if we didn't recognize them as being older than 50ky old." Then we use other methods to get a date. "
--So even though we find measurable quantities of C14 radioisotopes in your sample, this method of dating, is logially inaccurate, because the dates contredict greatly.

---

But we don't, unless there has been contamination.

quote:

---

"For one, I only mentioned oil and gas, not coal."
--Please excuse me, but then you must also explain coals likewize outrageous dates.

---

Okay, the lighter C12 favors the more mobile components such as coal gas and escapes. But then why am I explaining something that you have not verified actually happens?

quote:

---

"Good, then give us an example of a primitive organism being deposited on the ocean floor today. "
--Why should I if it makes no relevance to the discussion, I know that whether they lived millions or billions of years ago that there are organisms still living in the same state as they were in that time, whether deposited in the flood or the billions of years. Your problem is that we can get dates from radiocarbon in these samples.

---

Once again, you make an unsupported assertion. Please give us specifics on such samples.

quote:

---

"Good, then you realize that these deposits may not be related to modern depositon."
--Obviously, the problem is we can date these by Carbon14 analysis, as there should be none or unmeasurable quantities still existing there.

---

I would be glad to address any particular study, but you have given me nothing but vague assertions that data exists.

quote:

---

"Darn, caught in the act! Really we have no reason at all to assume that there are some old rocks and some young rocks! TC just exposed a centuries-old geology fraud."
--What are you talking about? The problem is that the Old rocks seem to be getting the young dates by C14 'dating'. I have yet to hear an explination.

---

Most likely it is contamination.

quote:

---

------Finish post later today, Don't give a response yet plz--------

---

Sorry, done before I saw this. I have however, posted elsewhere a response to your assertions about pollen in the Hakatai Shale. Before you answer anything else, do you understand that there are numerous radiometric methods to obtain dates on rocks?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"I don't quite know how to make this any simpler. Maybe this: When the C14 is gone, you need to use a different method. Like K-Ar."
--Your still missing or ignoring the point. You still have measurable C14 and the measurable quantity of radioisotopes, thus giving your date, contredicts K-Ar.

---

This is getting tedious, TC. I have told you that the likely explanation is contamination.

quote:

---

"So there is no C14 in the air? Skin? Smoke? Plastic? As the dates get older and older these tiny quantities become exceedingly important."
--This is not how you get C14 in your organism, C14 can only be present when it is contracted from the organism eating plant life, or eating something that ate plant life, when its dead, neither is it eating, or is it breathing.

---

(Sigh) TC, I won't bother answering this since someone has already done in a post above. Don't you ever think that possibly you don't understand the whole process of radiometric dating?

quote:

---

"I asked for an example not a sample. I was talking about a specific analysis that you know of where you have a problem with the date."
--I have a problem with all 15,000 of those dates, why would they give such dates to multi million year old stratum and its consealents.

---

Good, then you can give us some specific examples and give us details of the history of each one.

quote:

---

"Exaclty. That is why we do not use radiocarbon dates for dinosaur bones."
--Then why are we finding any C14 existing in them at all?

---

If you don't know by now, you never will.

quote:

---

"If we did we would have a bunch of "infinite" dates."
--Which is my point, your not getting your infinite dates.

---

Why would anyone report "infinite dates?" Actually, the dates are not infinite they are simply undefined. The calculation stops when the divisor goes to zero.

quote:

---

"I'm sure its been done, perhaps by mistake, but never reported."
--Not just dinosaur bones, but I just gave you 15,000 and their results, not their direct results but their porportional summary.

---

There is nothing to address in those dates. Give us details.

quote:

---

"Then we go to a different method. There are numerous techniques. It seems that you think radiocarbon is the only one."
--I am aware of many, C14 just being the most knowledgable, I believe 7 or so, they don't seem to be consistant with C14 do they?

---

Of course not. Most of them measure materials of much greater age. I wouldn't expect themto be consitent with radiocarbon.

quote:

---

"It would be the opposite problem of creationists measuring the age of historic volcanic eruptions using K-Ar techniques. It just doesn't make sense. I know you don't understand this so why don't you look up some references on radiometric dating?"
--You can't measure lava flows with K-Ar with my knowledge on the subject, I know you know why. I know enough about radiometric dating to make this argument feasable.

---

Why not?

quote:

---

"First, not many people make this mistake. Second the results are not reported because they make no sense and the researcher is emabarrased at using an inappropriate method."
--So then why do you continually say that the dating methods are consistant when they do not give consistant dates.

---

I will type very slowly here. Some things are old and are dated by other methods. Some things are younger and are dated by radiocarbon methods. I wouldn't expect them to give the same dates.

quote:

---

"But we don't, unless there has been contamination."
--Relying on the arument of contamination is greatly flawed, and no, not all 15,000 of those dates are flawed by contamination."Okay, the lighter C12 favors the more mobile components such as coal gas and escapes. But then why am I explaining something that you have not verified actually happens?"
--I think I know what your trying to say, but I think something I am not understanding from your grammer usage. "coal gas"?

---

Sorry, miner's usage. Try "coal bed methane." Does that sound familiar? If not you are less informed than I thought.

quote:

---

"Once again, you make an unsupported assertion. Please give us specifics on such samples."
--I just gave you an sample, or should I say example, 15,000 of them, with only 3 infinite dates, ie, unmeasurable).

---

I said "specifics."

quote:

---

"Most likely it is contamination."
--Really, if you don't assume it was contamination, then your whole theory as a whole, or your various 'dating' methods are stuck in a rut.

---

But I DO assume it was contamination.

quote:

---

"Sorry, done before I saw this. I have however, posted elsewhere a response to your assertions about pollen in the Hakatai Shale. Before you answer anything else, do you understand that there are numerous radiometric methods to obtain dates on rocks?"
--Yes I am well aware that there are many, as I have addressed through the forums numerous times before, I am showing you why C14 is either inconsistant with all the other dating methods, or they all are contredicting.

---

And we have been (repeatedly) showing you why the dates SHOULD contradict. I get the feeling your are ignoring us.

​

[This message has been edited by edge, 01-31-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by wj:
Well, I'm not a geologist but I can suggest two mechanisms for your first problem. Groundwater seeping with dissolved carbon dioxide as carbolic acid can seep through significant depths of soil and porous rock. Secondly contamination by handling (sweat, skin flakes, synthetic chemicals, diffusion of comtemporary air through porous material. Remember, we are not talking about fully fossilised materials when applying carbon dating.

---

Correct. Contamination may occur naturally,in the ground, or during sampling and preparation. The older a sample is the more likely that natural contamination has occurred. I submit that this is one reason that fewer dates on the old end of the radiocarbon range are reported (although this is still an unsubstantiated claim by TC). I would also guess that many are tossed. Why continue the analysis if no C14 is detected? One might ask: why attempt the dates in the first place if there is possible contamination? From my own personal experience this is done in the hope that a valid date will emerge to support a hypothesis, however, no geologist I know really needs a date to promote a hypothesis.Contamination during sampling and preparation is relatively easy and is more likely to occur in the hands of creationists. I have heard some stories about creationists showing specimens to their friends and displaying them on bookshelves before sending them off for analysis. This would not be standard protocol. Especially for radiocarbon analysis. One shouldn't even breathe on these samples. The combined effect of very low C14 concentrations (especially in older samples, as pointed out very capably above) and the super-sensitivity of the equipment make contamination a critical issue in this method.

quote:

---

"Contamination, water contains dissolved CO2, which forms carbonic acid, H2CO3. This is contamination that is difficult to avoid, but also, if the sample isn't treated correctly, grease, oil, mere atmospheric exposure."
--I could agree with the possibility of it being contamination by incorrect treatment with grease, and oil.

---

Actually, based on total exposure time, natural contamination is more likely. Contact with ground water, natural gas, etc. But I'm glad that you see the potential for contamination. It is really quite great as we are usually in dirty environments and we are carbon-based creatures ourselves.

quote:

---

But Atmospheric exposure, I think this would not be enough to be relevant, I would say that this if at all it actually happens, it would merely be undetectable.

---

I'm not sure about the amounts measured, but possibly in the parts per trillion. Any amount of contamination at that level is significant.

quote:

---

a. Of the dates of 9671 specimens of trees, animals, and man, only 1146 or about 12 percent have radiocarbon ages greater than 12,530 years.

---

What is your source for this. These are unsubstantiated numbers. I really think that there are more analyses than this.

quote:

---

b. Only three of the 15,000 reported ages are listed as infinite.

---

Yes. Undoubtedly, there were others that were tossed because undefined dates make no sense and indicate that other methods might be necessary.

quote:

---

c. Some samples of coal, oil, and natural gas, all supposedly many millions of years old, have radiocarbon ages of less than 50,000 years.

---

We have been over this before. Contamination in these systems is more likely than not. Do you have a specific sample that you would like to discuss. We need to know where it came from, who collected it, when, a complete in situ descriptiono of the sample among other things.

quote:

---

d. Deep ocean deposits supposed to contain remains of the most primitive life forms are dated within 40,000 years.

---

Again, we have been over this ground before. This tell us nothing. How deep and where were the samples collected? There are primitive life forms present and living today. How are these different? You have not subtantiated a single assertion here, TC. Your credibility is in the toilet.

quote:

---

Coal from Russia from the Pennsylvanian, supposedly 300 million years old, was dated at 1,680 years. (Radiocarbon, vol. 8, 1966).

---

More information. Give us a quote or something to work with. I'm quite certain that this sample was contaminated.

quote:

---

.. as far as I'm aware, fossils should NEVER be radiocarbon dated at all."
--This should be true, but the point is, what are you going to do when you have measurable quantities of radioisotopes in a sample that is many orders of magnitude older than it is supposed to be able to give dates that are not infinite.

---

I would first look at the sample description and check its chain of custody. That probably wouldn't occur to a creationist.