Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9045 total)
109 online now:
jar, PaulK (2 members, 107 visitors)
Newest Member: maria
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 887,082 Year: 4,728/14,102 Month: 326/707 Week: 57/197 Day: 1/16 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationist problems with radiocarbon dating
Dman
Member (Idle past 4004 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 02-26-2009


Message 31 of 194 (556628)
04-20-2010 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Coyote
04-19-2010 10:07 AM


My reply pertains to this:

quote:
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.

While discussing "young age" evidences with a creationist he presented this link to me: http://www.answersingenesis.org/...n-ages-for-ammonites-wood

Which he claimed as support of a young earth.

Here is the abstract:

Fossil ammonites from lower Cretaceous mudstones in northern California, which are supposedly 112–120 million years old and biostratigraphic index fossils, were sampled along with fossil wood buried with them. Fragments of two fossil ammonite shells and four pieces of fossil wood yielded easily measurable radiocarbon (14C) equivalent to apparent 14C ages of between 36,400±350 and 48,710±930 years for the ammonites, and between 32,780±230 and 42,390±510 years for the wood. Any contamination with modern 14C due to the sample environment and handling was eliminated by the laboratory’s severe pre-treatment procedure. Any alleged contamination due to sample combustion or AMS instrument background was more than compensated for by the laboratory background of 0.077 pMC already having been subtracted from the reported results. The ammonite shells could not have been contaminated in the ground by replacement with modern carbonate 14C either, because they yielded almost identical 14C apparent ages as the wood buried and fossilized with them. It was concluded that the measured 14C is in situ radiocarbon intrinsic to the ammonites and wood when they were buried and fossilized. So once past conditions in the atmosphere and biosphere are taken into account, their true ages are consistent with their burial during the Genesis Flood only about 4,300 years ago, when the ocean waters washed sediments and ammonites onto the continents.

I lack the knowledge to critique this with any merit. I was hoping to maybe get some feed back from those here at EvC with the proper knowledge to do so. This seemed like the appropriate thread.

Thanks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Coyote, posted 04-19-2010 10:07 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by ZenMonkey, posted 04-20-2010 3:35 PM Dman has responded
 Message 35 by Coyote, posted 04-20-2010 4:01 PM Dman has responded
 Message 41 by kbertsche, posted 04-20-2010 4:55 PM Dman has responded
 Message 44 by Coragyps, posted 04-20-2010 5:23 PM Dman has acknowledged this reply

  
Dman
Member (Idle past 4004 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 02-26-2009


Message 33 of 194 (556638)
04-20-2010 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by ZenMonkey
04-20-2010 3:35 PM


Re: Pretty easy even for me.
Radiocarbon (C14) dating is accurate for items as old as 58,000 to 62,000 years but not older. Works great for dating human artifacts. Not so much for items hundreds of millions of years old. That's like trying to measure the width of a hair with a yardstick and then complaining that you don't come up with an accurate number.

Man I hate arguing for creationists, but the argument here is that the wood contains 14C. It shouldn't considering that it was found in 112-120 million year old rock. They also make special note that contamination is not the issue.

ABE - Sorry, I should have been more clear on what the argument was.

Edited by Dman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by ZenMonkey, posted 04-20-2010 3:35 PM ZenMonkey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by ZenMonkey, posted 04-20-2010 3:56 PM Dman has responded

  
Dman
Member (Idle past 4004 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 02-26-2009


Message 37 of 194 (556644)
04-20-2010 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by ZenMonkey
04-20-2010 3:56 PM


Re: Pretty easy even for me.
Nope, I was right; they're full of unfiltered excrement. Upon re-reading the abstract, I can see that their claim is indeed that their 112 myo fossil samples are actually only about 40,000 years old, based on C14 dating.

I agree, but should we just call them liars when they state:

quote:
Any contamination with modern 14C due to the sample environment and handling was eliminated by the laboratory’s severe pre-treatment procedure. Any alleged contamination due to sample combustion or AMS instrument background was more than compensated for by the laboratory background of 0.077 pMC already having been subtracted from the reported results. The ammonite shells could not have been contaminated in the ground by replacement with modern carbonate 14C either, because they yielded almost identical 14C apparent ages as the wood buried and fossilized with them.

Assuming they aren't lying I'm not sure why there would be 14C found. And I really don't like to accuse someone of lying when I don't have enough knowledge on the subject

If you feel like looking more in depth at the 'paper' please do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by ZenMonkey, posted 04-20-2010 3:56 PM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Coyote, posted 04-20-2010 4:24 PM Dman has responded

  
Dman
Member (Idle past 4004 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 02-26-2009


Message 38 of 194 (556645)
04-20-2010 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Coyote
04-20-2010 4:01 PM


Re: Ammonites
Not sure what's going on with the ammonites; I would have to see more details.

I wish I had more details for you. Was the 'paper' lacking the information? Or have you not had the time to look into it?

So once past conditions in the atmosphere and biosphere are taken into account, their true ages are consistent with their burial during the Genesis Flood only about 4,300 years ago, when the ocean waters washed sediments and ammonites onto the continents.
quote:
This is incorrect.

I agree.

Edited by Dman, : Spelling


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Coyote, posted 04-20-2010 4:01 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Dman
Member (Idle past 4004 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 02-26-2009


Message 40 of 194 (556655)
04-20-2010 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Coyote
04-20-2010 4:24 PM


Re: Pretty easy even for me.
I read the paper, and would have to check with some of the techs at various labs for their opinions on those C14 levels.

Thanks, that would be great! I'll keep an eye out for your response.

But don't you find it interesting the gyrations creationists go through to make dates in the 30-40k range come out at 6k?

If by interesting you mean bat f****** insane, then yes, I find it 'interesting'


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Coyote, posted 04-20-2010 4:24 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Dman
Member (Idle past 4004 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 02-26-2009


Message 43 of 194 (556671)
04-20-2010 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by kbertsche
04-20-2010 4:55 PM


kbertsche,

Thank you for the reply. If you do a more detailed critique I look forward to reading it.

Taq, thank you as well for your input.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by kbertsche, posted 04-20-2010 4:55 PM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021