Carbon 14 in coal

[Lili]

Hi. A YEC said that carbon 14 is found in coal, which is millions of years old. According to this person, since carbon 14 has a short half life, it should not be found in coal and oil, and therefore, coal must not be as old as most scientists say it is. He also said that fossils that are said to be very old also contain C14. Why is C14 found in things that are believed to be millions of years old?

[SteveF]

There was thread on this subject a while back. One of the YEC authors involved in making this claim turned up:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...d.php?t=103916

[wattsr1]

Hi. A YEC said that carbon 14 is found in coal, which is millions of years old. According to this person, since carbon 14 has a short half life, it should not be found in coal and oil, and therefore, coal must not be as old as most scientists say it is. He also said that fossils that are said to be very old also contain C14. Why is C14 found in things that are believed to be millions of years old?

Gidday Lili,

Have a read of the following threads, particularly the second one.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...highlight=coal


http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...highlight=coal

I note that you seem to take a lot of interest in AiG claims. Are you a YEC? Your profile does not say that you are. I am curious, given this, and the fact that you do not participate in many threads you begin.



Regards, Roland

[Lili]

Gidday Lili,

Have a read of the following threads, particularly the second one.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...highlight=coal


http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...highlight=coal

I note that you seem to take a lot of interest in AiG claims. Are you a YEC? Your profile does not say that you are. I am curious, given this, and the fact that you do not participate in many threads you begin.



Regards, Roland

No, I'm not a YEC. I'm just checking their claims. Unfortunately, I do not know much about geology or physics so I am not able to participate as extensively as someone who has more experience in these areas. I'm trying to understand these subjects better, though.

[wattsr1]

No, I'm not a YEC. I'm just checking their claims. Unfortunately, I do not know much about geology or physics so I am not able to participate as extensively as someone who has more experience in these areas. I'm trying to understand these subjects better, though.

Fair enough. I was being cynical, so my sincere apologies. I hope I have not put a dampener on your enquiries then, because you are correct in what you are doing. Good on you.

I have a book at home titled "The Counter-Creationism Handbook" by Mark Isaak. In his book, Isaak lists many of the creationists claims, and offers a very short rebuttal of each. The book is divided into sections - biology, palaeontology, geology, astronomy and cosmology, physics and mathematics, as well as a few more miscellaneous sections. The book is some 300 pages long, including a 50 page bibliography at the end.

Worth getting your hands on, if you can. It points you in the right direction.

(ETA: Just had a look at the back cover of the book. It is based on the following WebSite:-

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

That may make it easier for you.)


One good way of checking up on AiG is picking on just one topic and researching that. It is how I started. 'Tis a worthwhile exercise if you can afford the time. For me, it took many trips to a local university library, lots of reading, trying to make some sense of concepts I had little knowledge in etc. It was good fun though, and a real eye-opener to the nefarious reasoning of YEC scientists (I did end up exchanging letters). While they may be sincere, they certainly do misrepresent the thoughts of others to a point that often strains credulity.

Once more, sorry for my cynicism.



Regards, Roland

[JonF]

Dr. Bertsche has expanded and edited his posts here and the result is at RATE's Radiocarbon: Intrinsic or Contamination?, part of RATE (Radioactivity and the Age of The Earth): Analysis and Evaluation of Radiometric Dating. Note that the American Scientific Affiliation is staunchly Christian, although some YECs might deny that.

[Lili]

Fair enough. I was being cynical, so my sincere apologies. I hope I have not put a dampener on your enquiries then, because you are correct in what you are doing. Good on you.

I have a book at home titled "The Counter-Creationism Handbook" by Mark Isaak. In his book, Isaak lists many of the creationists claims, and offers a very short rebuttal of each. The book is divided into sections - biology, palaeontology, geology, astronomy and cosmology, physics and mathematics, as well as a few more miscellaneous sections. The book is some 300 pages long, including a 50 page bibliography at the end.

Worth getting your hands on, if you can. It points you in the right direction.

(ETA: Just had a look at the back cover of the book. It is based on the following WebSite:-

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

That may make it easier for you.)


One good way of checking up on AiG is picking on just one topic and researching that. It is how I started. 'Tis a worthwhile exercise if you can afford the time. For me, it took many trips to a local university library, lots of reading, trying to make some sense of concepts I had little knowledge in etc. It was good fun though, and a real eye-opener to the nefarious reasoning of YEC scientists (I did end up exchanging letters). While they may be sincere, they certainly do misrepresent the thoughts of others to a point that often strains credulity.

Once more, sorry for my cynicism.



Regards, Roland

No problem. And thank you for suggesting that book. I'll check it out. One creationist claim that I haven't been able to find a rebuttal to at talkorigins is the claim that the reason most radiometric dates agree is that scientists discard the dates that do not fit their beliefs about the age of the strata they are dating. I'll look again and see if I can find a rebuttal to this claim at talkorigins.

[wattsr1]

No problem. And thank you for suggesting that book. I'll check it out. One creationist claim that I haven't been able to find a rebuttal to at talkorigins is the claim that the reason most radiometric dates agree is that scientists discard the dates that do not fit their beliefs about the age of the strata they are dating. I'll look again and see if I can find a rebuttal to this claim at talkorigins.

Somewhere in those links we provided above, (see JohnF's post as well) Dr. Bertsche discusses this.

In fact if you have a look at post #237 in:-

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...rd#post2211887

and read forward from there, you may get some useful information from an insider.



Regards, Roland

[rogue06]

No problem. And thank you for suggesting that book. I'll check it out. One creationist claim that I haven't been able to find a rebuttal to at talkorigins is the claim that the reason most radiometric dates agree is that scientists discard the dates that do not fit their beliefs about the age of the strata they are dating. I'll look again and see if I can find a rebuttal to this claim at talkorigins.

As wattsr1 points out the book is available online (check link provided). Look at the sections under CD010

[JonF]

No problem. And thank you for suggesting that book. I'll check it out. One creationist claim that I haven't been able to find a rebuttal to at talkorigins is the claim that the reason most radiometric dates agree is that scientists discard the dates that do not fit their beliefs about the age of the strata they are dating.

Dates that do not fit mainstream expectations are published. How else would Woodmorappe ever have found his 300 discordant dates? (see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/age.htm). Or why weren't the discordant KBS Tuff ages discarded ... instead, they were published in Nature, arguably the most prestigious journal in the world (see http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD031.html).

Always follow the money. Getting a date costs money. Operating the equipment costs money. That money is accounted for. Do you expect the auditors not to notice that significant amounts of money are being wasted on studies that are never published?

There is at least one US Geological Service dating lab, in Menlo Park, California. It's been in operation for decades. The USGS is a government entity. Suggest to your friend that he/she get the Menlo park records with an FOIA request and compare them to what gets published. Data's available, but the YECs are terrified by it and hide whenever it appears.

[Weboh2]

Someone mentioned in a post that particles from beta particles could also have produced the carbon-14 in coal, trees, diamonds etc. I believe this more than I would common YEC claims about carbon-14.