Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 59 (9108 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: sensei
Post Volume: Total: 907,808 Year: 4,689/14,231 Month: 1,404/2,209 Week: 243/325 Day: 0/68 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Creationist problems with radiocarbon dating
Member (Idle past 1651 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008

Message 1 of 2 (556343)
04-19-2010 10:07 AM

An exchange with Calibrated Thinker from another thread:
Calibrated Thinker writes:
Coyote writes: 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.

Posts: 12903
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002

Message 2 of 2 (556358)
04-19-2010 11:16 AM

Thread Copied to Dates and Dating Forum
Thread copied to the Creationist problems with radiocarbon dating thread in the Dates and Dating forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2023