From the site: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dating-radiometric.htm#tree
“The following message was sent to me by e mail on February 11, 1998:
As one who has taught dendrochronnology, I have a few opinions on this particular subject. Also, one of my graduate students went to work for Ferguson in his lab at U of A, and in fact was the curator of his work after his death, and is presently probably the only one who knows anything about how he [Ferguson] produced the bristlecone chronology. Another of my graduate students gave a seminar to the lab on dendrochronology of fossil trees and had ample opportunity to analyze the procedures there, and to work with Ferguson for a while. I can say on pretty firm grounds that the Bristlecone chronology before 4000bp is fraught with problems and unanswered questions. While Ferguson was alive, he never allowed anyone to analyze his original data or the bases for the many suppositions that went into the establishment of the chronology. Thus the chronology was not subjected to the normal rigors of science.”
“But suffice to say the chronology before 4000bp is entirely dependent on C14 dates of the wood, and is thus tautologous. “
“Dr. Libby, the discoverer of the C14 method, which won for him a Nobel prize, expressed his shock that human artifacts extended back only 5000 years, a finding totally in conflict with any evolutionary concept. Older dates were found to be very unreliable (CRSQ , 1972, 9:3, p.157). By this time tens of thousands of C14 dates have been published from tests performed by various laboratories around the world. In the annual volumes in which the dates are published, concerns have been expressed about many relatively young dates that violate established geological age notions” Woopsie.
“Bones 30,000 years old were found lying above wood dated at 16,000 years (Ceram, 1971, p.257-259).”
“Another classic C14 problem was noted for Jarmo, a prehistoric village in northern Iraq. Eleven samples were dated from the various strata and showed a 6000-year spread from oldest to most recent. Analysis of all the archaeological evidence, however, showed that the village was occupied no more than 500 years before it was finally abandoned “ Woopsie- better trot out the ‘contamination’ excuse
“Mortar samples can be given normal C14 tests since mortar absorbs carbon dioxide from the air. Mortar, however, from Oxford Castle in England gave an age of 7,270 years. The castle was built about 800 years ago.”
“Data produced by the Petroleum Institute at Victoria, New Zealand, showed that petroleum deposits were formed 6,000-7,000 years ago. Textbooks state that petroleum formation took place about 300,000,000 years ago”
On and on it goes- and on and on the ‘contamination’ excuse goes. As the site states, some people claim that when dating anythign over 30,000 (supposedly) years, that ‘of course there will be mistaken dates given because the subjects are subject to contasmination- yet, incredibly, we’re told Carbon dating is ‘accurate up to 40-50,000 years. I guess when the whacky dating method gives a date ya like- then that date is inscritible- but when it conflicts, ya just claim ‘contamination’ But alas, the author of the site probably isn’t as degreed as you, so we can safely ignore the facts he presents- phew.
I find it incredible that you claim anyone that brings evidence that doesn’t support Carbon dating isn’t ‘qualified’ to do so (Despite the fact that the oens doing so in many cases are geologists themselves- not sure how you come to your conclusion other than by complete priori based baised.) Yet, when it comes to maligning ID science- you apparently feel yourself quite qualified to malign them DESPITE the fact that you both aren’t educated in their science fields and DESPITE the fact that you completely ignore their science aND worse yet, don’t even bother to study their science because you can’t get yourself past a NON issue- that they have PERSONAL beliefs OUTSIDE of their scientific investigations. you rail against them being yourself completely ignorant of the science they are conducting. A petty bias against people’s PERSONAL beliefs is apparently enough in your mind, to discount their science. You lecture others about pointing out problems with carbon and other radiometric dating t4echniques- requiring them to be fully accreditted scientists before they can voice the FACTS about hte problems, yet you give yourself complete liberty to ignore your own petty rules. Amazing.
From the site again “Anyway, as for C14 dating in general, it seems clear that many, many results are much too young according to the standard view, and that explaining away one or two of them does not appreciably diminish the problem.”
You don’t even bother to explain even a few away- your tactic is to rail incessantly about a site as though such railings are scientifically credible and sufficient to discount any problems that radiometric dating methods might have. And you have the nerve to call ID apologetics? Bahahaha.
Coal from Russia from the "Pennsylvanian," supposedly 300 million years old, was dated at 1,680 years. (Radiocarbon, vol. 8, 1966).I am gradually tracking down the many phoney claims made pertaining to the radiocarbon dating process, but because I have to work for a living and don't have unlimited access to a major library it takes time. But, I have tracked this one down. It appears in a lot of places in creationist literature, not just in the one you cited. For example, it's at TrueOrigin.org as well.
Analysis:
False information due to sloppy research.
This is a difficult reference to track down because the actual page number is not provided. It appears that each creationist website just copies from the previous without checking the original citation. (The information in question is on page 319.)
The original source for the false information seems to be Ken Ham, Andrew Snelling, and Carl Weiland’s The Answers Book, published by Master Books, El Cajon, CA, in 1992 (page 73).
The original article in the journal Radiocarbon includes the following paragraph describing this sample:
Mo-334. River Naryn, Kirgizia -- 1680 ± 170. A.D. 270
Coal from the cultural layer on the left side of the r. Naryn (Kirgizian SSR), 3 km E of the mourh of the r. Alabuga (41° 25' N Lat, 74° 40' E Long). The sample was found at a depth of 7.6 m in the form of scattered coals in a loamy rock in deposits of a 26-m terrace. According to the archaeological estimations the sample dates from the 5 to 7th centuries A.D. The sample was found by K. V. Kurdyumov (Moscow State Univ.) in 1962. Comment: the find serves as a verification of archaeological data on the peopling of the Tien Shan.
What we have here is no more than shorthand or sloppy translation from the Russian! The coal is nothing more than charcoal from an archaeological deposit. This sample is even included in the section of the report dealing with archaeological samples, and the paragraph discusses archaeological data.
The odd use of terms is shown clearly in another radiocarbon date, Mo-353, reported on page 315 of the same article. It reads "Charcoal from cultural deposits of a fisher site. The coal was coll. from subturfic humified loam..."
But the term "coal" in place of "charcoal" was enough to fool Ken Ham, as well as dozens of subsequent creationists who apparently were salivating to find 300 million year old coal radiocarbon dated to recent times, and who repeated Ham's false claim without bothering to check its accuracy.
The interesting question is where Ken Ham managed to find "Pennsylvanian" in that short paragraph, and where he dug up the date of 300 million years.
This is still another case where a creationist claim about science falls apart when examined more closely.
Reference
Vinogradov, A.P.; A.L. Devirts; E.I. Dobinka; and N.G. Markova. Radiocarbon dating in the Vernadsky Institute I-IV. Radiocarbon, Vol 8, No. 1, pp. 292-323.
Another creationist claim shot down in flames. Yet you continue to trust those creationist websites!