In a thread on faith and belief, Zachariah answers some questions about why he distrusts conventional dating methods, with examples given in
Message 28 and
Message 29. This thread is to allow further discussion of those examples in the appropriate forum.
Zacharia did not indicate the source he is used, but it is almost certainly the notoriously inaccurate and misleading
Pathlights on-line creation-evolution encyclopedia. I link to the page which repeats all the same examples that Zacharia has given. I will show that all the criticisms save one are based on trivial errors of comprehension or knowledge.
Zachariah writes:
Okay. In the Proceedings of the Symposium on Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology held at Uppsala in 1969, T. Save-Soderbergh and I.U. Olsson introduce their report with these words:
"C-14 dating was being discussed at a symposium on the prehistory of the Nile Valley. A famous American colleague, Professor Brew, briefly summarized a common attitude among archeologists towards it as follows: If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in the footnote. And if it is completely out of date we just drop it. Few archeologists who have concerned themselves with absolute chronology are innocent of having applied this method..."
They may not have changed their experiments to suit their findings, but they refuse to allow people to see the true complete findings that refute their arguments. This is lying and is far from scientific findings as you can get. They are terrified that others may see the errors so they just don't show the evidence that confirms what I said. It is inaccurate.
Professor Olsson is making a criticism of the practice of archaeology for failing to recognize when their models are disproved by the new methods of radiometric dating. The reason for making this comment is because radiometric dating is highly reliable and completely objective. Some difficulties exist, but it is far and away more reliable than the other indirect methods being used in archaeology before this.
Since the time of this quote, radiometric dating has continued to be developed and refined, and its demonstrated record of success, independently confirmed by other methods, means that it is now well accepted as an essential tool in the arsenal of archaeology, with clear recognition that a theory which is inconsistent with absolute dating methods is almost certainly wrong.
There is considerable irony in Zacharia using this quote, since it is making a direct criticism of those who ignore or dismiss radiometric dating, and continue to defend invalid ideas without acknowledgement of the hard empirical information available in radiocarbon dating that disproves their claims.
About four years ago I emailed Professor Olsson directly to request her comment on this matter, in the hope that a direct word from the source would help put dispute over what she was saying to rest. You can read my initial report of that contact in
the Google archive
Olsson's email notes that sometimes results she has acted for a "customer" to give them radiometric dates, which are subsequently ignored. She also notes that there have been times when the customer has later on admitted that their original ideas were in fact wrong, and that the radiocarbon dates force them to reconsider their position.
Zacharia writes:
Why did they find a mammoth in the Lena River in Russia that was c dated at 26,000 years but the peat layer 18 inches above was 5,000. It would take 500-2,000 solar year (present growth rate) to produce such a layer.
There is nothing at all wrong with this. Both dates are probably correct. It is usual for layers above a deposition to be younger than material buried in the lower layers.
The creationist source appears to suggest that the peat layer should have deposited at continuous rates since the time between burial of the mammoth. This is completely false. There is no reason for such a grossly uniformitarian assumption; and even the uniformitarians of the eighteenth century never applied such an absurd caricature of uniformitarianism.
Muscle tissue from beneath the scalp of a mummified musk ox found in Fairbanks Alaska was dated at 24,000 years. the hair from the limb of the carcass was dated at 17,200. A life span exceeding 7,000 years for a specimen of this species is doubtful.
Pathlights gives no source for this claim, but as luck would have it I know a bit about this one. The dates are taken from two different mammoth carcasses, found at two different locations in Alaska. Both dates are correct. You can also see this refuted with references in the index to creationist claims,
CD011.2.
A survey of 15,000 radiocarbon dates found that of over 9,000 trees, animals and man 12% were greater than 12,530 years. Only 3 of the 15,000 were listed as 'infinite'. Samples of coal, oil, natural gas said to be millions of years old were dated less than 50,000 years.
Deep ocean deposits to contain some of the most primitive life dated within 40,000 years.
These four factoids are credited by the Pathlights encyclopedia to a survey made in 1982 by Robert Lee that considered dates in the journal
Radiocarbon. Unfortunately, I do not have access to this article, but the only one of the above which suggests any problem at all is the one about coal, oil and natural gas.
That most reported dates in the journal are less than 12,530 years is a reflection of the how this method is mostly applied. I'm surprised that the proportion of young dates is not even higher, given that the extensive use of the method in archaeology.
The reference to primitive life is just weird. Lee is apparently confused on what it means for life to be primitive. Deep trenches are not a source for very ancient life; though they may be a source for very primitive life. This is not an error.
It is known that coal and oil sometimes (but not always) contain tiny traces of carbon-14. It should be noted here that Lee's survey was in 1982, at which time 50,000 years was right at the limits of detection of the method. This is the only example Zacharia has raised which actually is a genuine problem, rather than simply a straightforward error of comprehension or data. There are a number of known causes which can result in the tiny amounts of C-14 detected, and research is ongoing to discover exactly what causes are at work in various cases. A good discussion is available at
Carbon-14 in Coal Deposits by Kathleen Hunt at talkorigins. The two most likely causes are in-situ production of C-14 by other radioactive sources; or effects of bacterial contaminations. As with any other dating method, sources of potential contamination are investigated all the time, and certain conditions are identified which make the contamination less likely and allow more confidence in the dates.
That is enough for now. I'm going home. Proove yourself to be correct. Then I will listen. I prooved mine. —Zach
With respect; to prove your case you need to give better references. I believe I have proved that all your examples except one are based on simple errors and miscomprehensions, and are not supportive of your rejection of radiometric dating. The one case that has some merit is not a general refutation of this well confirmed method, but an instance where some contamination can distort results at the edge of detectability.
Cheers -- Sylas
™ Version 4.2