Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jayjay · 07-24-2003, 06:41 PM

According to AiG's latest misrepresentation of dating methods:

Quote:

Laboratories that measure 14C would like a source of organic material with zero 14C to use as a blank to check that their lab procedures do not add 14C. Coal is an obvious candidate because the youngest coal is supposed to be millions of years old, and most of it is supposed to be tens or hundreds of millions of years old. Such old coal should be devoid of 14C. It isn't. No source of coal has been found that completely lacks 14C.

Curiously, they provide no source for this claim, even though the article is otherwise littered with footnotes. Is this true or false? If true, what's the explanation? Any idea where AiG got this particular piece of (mis)information?

Coragyps · 07-24-2003, 07:18 PM

It's true, and rather nicely defused as a YEC weapon by a Kathleen Hunt at Talk.origins. 14C gets into coal from reactions with neutrons from nearby uranium and thorium. It's a subject of active investigation, and Hunt gives some good links along with her lucid explanation of the issue.

I didn't bother to look at AiG again, but how many of those footnotes are to articles in Creation Science Quarterly?

Jayjay · 07-24-2003, 07:41 PM

Thanks!

Quote:

I didn't bother to look at AiG again, but how many of those footnotes are to articles in Creation Science Quarterly?

Only a couple. This being AiG, most of the journal references point to their own Creation magazine and CEN Technical Journal.

Godless Dave · 07-25-2003, 04:42 AM

Of course, if the field of geology's estimation of the age of the earth were off by 4,499,994,000 years as the creationists claim, they wouldn't even know where to dig for coal.

Peez · 07-25-2003, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Godless Dave:
Of course, if the field of geology's estimation of the age of the earth were off by 4,499,994,000 years as the creationists claim, they wouldn't even know where to dig for coal.

Or, to put it another (perhaps more descriptive) way, they are off by 74,999,900%.

Peez

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-24-2003, 07:18 PM	#2
Coragyps Veteran Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Snyder,Texas,USA Posts: 4,411	It's true, and rather nicely defused as a YEC weapon by a Kathleen Hunt at Talk.origins. 14C gets into coal from reactions with neutrons from nearby uranium and thorium. It's a subject of active investigation, and Hunt gives some good links along with her lucid explanation of the issue. I didn't bother to look at AiG again, but how many of those footnotes are to articles in Creation Science Quarterly?

07-25-2003, 04:42 AM	#4
Godless Dave Contributor Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: With 10,000 lakes who needs a coast? Posts: 10,762	Of course, if the field of geology's estimation of the age of the earth were off by 4,499,994,000 years as the creationists claim, they wouldn't even know where to dig for coal.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.