An exchange with Calibrated Thinker from another thread:
Calibrated Thinker writes:
Coyote writes:
Creation.com has the following in their "Age of the earth" page:
Radiometric dating
51. Carbon-14 in coal suggests ages of thousands of years and clearly contradict ages of millions of years.
52. Carbon-14 in oil again suggests ages of thousands, not millions, of years.
53. Carbon-14 in fossil wood also indicates ages of thousands, not millions, of years.
54. Carbon-14 in diamonds suggests ages of thousands, not billions, of years.
All four of these are absolutely wrong and reflect common errors passed from one creationist website to another.
If you want to debate these I'd be happy to oblige--on a different thread. Find one of the radiocarbon threads and post this and I'll show you where each is absolutely wrong.
What repeatable, verifiable evidence can you provide that confirms the accuracy of any of the radiometric dating methods currently used today.
I feel quite sure that we will have to agree to disagree on the veracity of dating techniques, but if you wish to go through the usual arguments, I can oblige but it is likely going to a repetition of the same debate.
I live in a coal mining town in Australia and see first hand a massive volume of evidence for a massive flood event on a whole planet scale. Interestingly atop and below each coal seam are leaves sticks and twigs that are still wood, and look very much like leaves and twigs that you find on the forest floor when bush walking. Obviously the temperature was insufficient at the margins to convert this material to anthracite as is the case only centimetres away.
By the way these coal seams are about 150 metres to 200 metres below the surface under a range of sedimentary strata that all have knife edge boundaries in the horizontal plane. My point being that this is typical of rapid deposition. Interestingly enough these are dated by radiometric methods as being late Permian 255 Ma. Amazing that sticks and leaves have lasted that long without deterioration don't you think. The seams are exposed in huge open cut pits.
The RD age doesn't fit the logical explanation that the coal and the sticks aren't as old as many would like make out. This is not hearsay, I'm talking about what I see with my own eyes.
It is the interpretation that dictates the result. ...
Go for it, the dialogue could hopefully prove to be stimulating.
I propose this thread to examine creationist claims about radiocarbon dating, and in particular the purportedly young ages that are sometimes found in materials that are actually very old.
This is important because these supposedly young ages are being used to "prove" a young earth.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
™ Version 4.2