Re: It's no joke!

From: Michael Roberts <>
Date: Mon Apr 04 2005 - 14:35:35 EDT

There is also the possibility that C14 is made through the presence of
Uranium - see Talk origins website.

In 1978 Woodmarappe gave a long list of anomalous ages - about 700 I think.
I check some of them as many came from the Geol Soc London 1964 book on the
Phanerozoic Timescale (many of which contributors taught me) After 50 or so
misrepresentations and no accurate reporting I gave up. I remember my anger
when I found my personal tutor misquoted on several occasions. I am afraid I
cant give chapter and verse as I did not note my findings , and it would
take many hours to note them all down again and then write them up properly.
(It takes a baby 2 seconds to puke over your best clothes, but a long time
to clear up the mess.) Glenn and Steve Schimmerich have had a go.

When you add this to misreps in the Genesis Flood on rad age dating , the
1801 Hawaiian lavas , alleged anomalous dates thrown up by Snelling et al,
and howlers in most YEC literature I at least begin to have some serious
questions about the integrity of YEC science. I might even go further but
the moral thought police will be on me like a ton of bricks.

It was much more fun when at University to witness leaders in the field of
rad age dating arguing and contradicting each other as they wrestled with
the problems. If anyone had flaws in their work someone else would soon find
them. One member of the staff was an evangelical and simply described YECs
who misrepresented rad age dating as ******* liars.

Just a puzzle for those on this list. Why do Tertiary granites from the Isle
of Skye, in Scotland give dates ranging from about 60my to hundreds of
millions and why do certain gneisses in Colorado give dates ranging from
about 60 to 1300my when different methods are used or if they are collected
in different places? Or as I heard my tutor Richard Lambert discussing way
back in the 60s why do Grenvillian rocks in Canada produce various ages from
about 400 to about 800 my?


----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy Isaac" <>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 2:06 AM
Subject: Re: It's no joke!

> Roger Wiens is the expert on radiometric dating and the following two
> paragraphs are extracted from his article:
> "The older the sample, the less carbon-14 it should contain. But in
> attempting to date very old samples, much older than the half-life of
> carbon-14, the analysis becomes very prone to contamination. A fleck of
> skin, a pollen grain, a human hair, or even adsorbed air on a sample
> surface will have a high carbon-14 content giving a radiocarbon age of
> zero years. If one of these contaminates a very ancient sample that has
> essentially no remaining carbon-14, the resulting contaminated analysis
> sees a measurable amount of carbon-14 (contamination), mixed with
> carbon-12 from the rock. This makes it appear that the rock has a
> carbon-14 amount that has decayed over only a few half lives. In this
> way, a small amount of contamination makes a several million year old rock
> appear to be only several tens of thousands of years old! Because
> contamination in our air environment is unavoidable, all samples, no
> matter how old, appear to have some radiocarbon. Speaking in terms of
> uncertainty analysis (Chapter 5), the error is very non-linear. A very
> small amount of contamination from air or living matter causes a very huge
> error, in the millions of years if the rock is that old.
> It is generally accepted that for samples older than about
> 40,000 years (that is, with less than 0.5 percent modern carbon ratio) one
> must use a method with a longer half life. Fortunately, when using an
> appropriate half-life, these huge non-linear errors are avoided. In fact,
> radiocarbon is a unique case; in all of the methods described below it is
> impossible to obtain consistently young ages on samples that are really
> millions of years old."
> Vernon, it does seem to be powerful evidence indeed--for sample
> contamination.
> Randy
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "gordon brown" <>
> To: "Vernon Jenkins" <>
> Cc: <>
> Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 8:25 PM
> Subject: Re: It's no joke!
>> Vernon,
>> This isn't my field, but I imagine that there are others on this list who
>> can find false assumptions on which this is based. At least that is what
>> can usually be done with ICR claims.
>> When scientists come across an anomaly, they first look for errors in the
>> one inconsistent case rather than in the million consistent cases.
>> In the event of a conflict between an interpretation of scientific
>> evidence and an interpretation of Scripture, we should not overlook the
>> possibility that we have misinterpreted the latter. I quote from the
>> statement of the 1982 Summit of the International Council on Biblical
>> Inerrancy: "We further affirm that in some cases extrabiblical data have
>> value for clarifying what Scripture teaches, and for prompting correction
>> of faulty interpretations." Isn't that what happened with the Christian
>> reaction to the Copernican theory?
>> Gordon Brown
>> Department of Mathematics
>> University of Colorado
>> Boulder, CO 80309-0395
>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Vernon Jenkins wrote:
>>> A poster entitled "The Enigma of the Ubiquity of C14 in Organic Samples
>>> Older than 100 ka" may be found at
>>> Here is the Abstract :-
>>> "Given the 5730 year C14 half-life, organic materials older than 200,000
>>> years (35 half-lives), should contain absolutely no detectable C14. (One
>>> gram of modern carbon contains about 6 x 10^[10] C14 atoms, and 35
>>> half-lives of decay reduces that number by a factor of 3 x 10^[-11].) An
>>> astonishing discovery made over the past 20 years is that, almost
>>> without exception, when tested by highly sensitive accelerator mass
>>> spectrometer (AMS) methods, organic samples from every portion of the
>>> Phanerozoic record display C14/C ratios far above the AMS detection
>>> threshold of 0.001% modern carbon (pmc). C14/C ratios from all but the
>>> youngest Phanerozoic samples appear to be clustered in the range 0.1 -
>>> 0.5 pmc, corresponding to C14 ages of 44,000 - 57,000 years, regardless
>>> of geological 'age'. An inference that can be drawn from these
>>> observations is that all but the very youngest Phanerozoic organic
>>> material was fossilized less than 70,000 years ago. When one accounts
>>> for the signifi!
>> cant amount of biomass involved, the AMS measurements are consistent with
>> the time scale from historical accounts of a global cataclysm that
>> destroyed most of the air-breathing life on the planet only a few
>> millenia into the past."
>>> A further interesting observation is made in the same publication, viz
>>> "A glaring (1000-fold) inconsistency that can no longer be ignored in
>>> the scientific world exists between the AMS-determined C14 levels and
>>> the corresponding rock ages provided by U238, Rb87, and K40 techniques.
>>> We believe the most likely explanation for this inconsistency to be the
>>> invalidity of uniformitarian assumption of time-invariant decay rates."
>>> Rather powerful evidence, wouldn't you agree?
>>> Shalom,
>>> Vernon
Received on Mon Apr 4 14:39:48 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Apr 04 2005 - 14:39:49 EDT