Search This Blog

Monday, April 30, 2012

The lies and denial of evolution remind me of the lies and denial of global climate alarmists!

I am not close to the computer where my comments arrive and may not see many of them until Monday evening.    Therefore I am flying a bit blind, but I cannot imagine any Darwinists have thought up a good answer to the Carbon-14 problem in the last two days as they have not done in in the last several decades, so no worries there.   Anyway, all Darwinist dating methods suffer the fatal flaw of failure to account for the Flood and will always be way-way off.   Denial is pretty common amongst Darwinists, just as are lies.  If you doubt that, let me just say "Haeckel" or "Huxley" or "Gingrich" and know I could keep going!

Not that being wrong is any problem for Darwinists and Naturalists.   Pretty much every basic assertion made by Charles Darwin has proven to be false.   He could not help that, being a 19th Century English gentleman with no concept of nature and complexity of the cell, the existence of DNA and myriad other aspects of living organisms that would have been absolutely astounding to him.   I wonder if he would have been willing to be wrong in order to know truth?   I get the feeling that, even though Darwin decided to press forward with his hypothesis of evolution before he had a means by which it was accomplished (he considered Larmarkism and other concepts before Blyth's natural selection concept caught his attention), he would have abandoned it had he any idea of the remarkable complexity of organisms and the sheer bulk of information within them and the marks of design everywhere.   Darwin thought cells were blobs of protoplasm and that soon a continuum of transitional fossils would be found to fit his ideas.  Sorry, Charlie!

So many naturalistic materialists refuse to be wrong no matter how wrong they are.   For instance, when evidence from sea drones and satellites and other sources showed that global warming was not happening and the faked hockey stick graph was exposed and all the emails from the CRU in which the climate alarmists admitted to changing and hiding and faking evidence, did they admit to it?   No, they changed Global Warming to Climate Change and kept on sounding the alarm!!!   I have to tell you, if you investigate you will discover that there actually was a conspiracy, an unholy alliance between radical green nuts and businessmen/politicians who saw a way to make a boatload of easy cash.  Not so, you say, no way is there any kind of big conspiracy going on in the world of science?   Uhm, besides the CRU and the UN and all that faked evidence...

Climate stations all over North America were changed to produce artificially high temperatures.   Yes, temperature recording instruments were put on the top of asphalt-roofed buildings in the middle of cities or right in front of the exhaust end of air conditioners or right beside airport runways (jet engines, anyone?) and other violations of the regulations for weather stations.   You will find that I have written a lot on that subject so, rather than point to my posts I will simply remind you that going to Watt's Up With That will allow you to research Climategate and the weather station alterations.

Here is Anthony Watt's first venture into the weather station scandal.   After five years, extreme offenders have been identified and some of the worst ones changed...a few.   But men with millions of dollars, men like Al Gore, had invested heavily in carbon offset companies.   The scam was that companies which could not meet the enviromental requrements could pay a carbon offset company to go plant trees somewhere and no fines from the government would ensue.   It was a perfect scam, guys like Gore had lots of political insiders and legislators on his buddy list to make sure the government came down on "offenders" while Gore himself made a wildly inaccurate and buffoonish movie entitled "The Inconvenient Truth."   Now it takes a lo-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-ong web post to publish the 35 major Inconvenient lies and errors in Gore's movie!!!

So here is the start of it all when 1) Anhony decided to just check out the weather stations of North Amrica just to see if things were being done right...then 2) the state of the weather stations today!

1)  My summer project – a national weather station audit

ssorg_logo.png
You may remember a couple of weeks ago I got sideswiped by Ms, Sherri Quammen, who in a letter to the editor called me a “weapon of mass destruction” because I’m actively involved in climate change issues locally. While funny, it did give me the impetus (aka kick in the pants) I needed to get very busy and serious about a project I had been contemplating for some time:

A national repository of weather station site surveys.

ZZZZ Snore, ho hum you say? I’d normally agree, as the subject matter is the stuff of sleep inducers. But there’s a hitch. It seems that the folks at the top of the food chain in climate research didn’t do their homework at the base level, and didn’t bother to do a quality control check on the many weather stations used in the climate records and the computer models used to predict our climate future.

I remember a talk in the spring where Jim Price of CSU had to interrupt (at the behest of a couple of folks that felt a comment about the sun’s role in climate change studies was being ignored was “biased”) the Chico observatory series, Cosmic Hike to give us all a tongue lashing on why Global Warming is “good science”. I asked him a question in front of everybody about how well biases in measurements at weather stations had been accounted for (Jim’s on the IPCC committee) and he said that they had been “carefully accounted for and considered”. I didn’t believe him then, even less now.

Ok back to my summer project. Thanks to Quammen’s inspiration, I got busy putting together a website called www.surfacestations.org for the purpose of doing a nationwide, and hopefully a worldwide audit on the viability of the weather stations used in climate research.

To seed the effort, I’ve been driving around Northern California photographing and logging weather stations, and blogger Russ Steele from Grass Valley has been helping do surveys too. You’ve seen some of them in my blog posts titled: How not to measure temperature.

Some, like Marysville, are just unbelievably badly biased, and to be blunt, the data they produce is simply useless. Yet, they are part of our “official” climate temperature record, and the data is in fact used in the computer models.

So Monday, I go live with the www.surfacestations.org website showcasing some of the US Historical Climate Record sites which is the major framework that global warming science is built upon.

The reaction was immediate and visceral in the science blogosphere. I’d hit a nerve. Some posters called for my “removal”, not knowing that I’m not funded by grants, nor employed by a government agency. I’m funding all this myself, out of my own pocket. I had to chuckle. Some called me an amateur, others said I would taint the outcome, some just ranted (I think maybe Tasker joined in). Many questioned why such an effort was needed at all. The reaction to taking photographs of weather stations to document their conditions raised a stink I never could have predicted. Why? How can something so simple raise so many hackles? Aren’t many climate scientists saying “case closed” and “no more debate”? How could a few pictures threaten this established science?

Well here’s why: Lets use the weather station in Willows at the Tehama Colusa Canal Authority as an example. Its a lights=0 station. A what? Lights=0 means it has no lights around it. Ok so what does that have to do with climate change and temperature measurement? Well, it turns out that Dr. James Hansen of NASA, in creating his USHCN database didn’t actually visit the weather stations to see if they were working well and bias free, but rather conducted an armchair survey where he used nighttime Department of Defense satellite photos to evaluate the potential heat bias from growth around the stations. He figured counting streetlights in a radius would be a good indicator. For stations like Willows, out at the end of Hwy162, yes it works. It also works for out of the way stations like Lake Spaulding, except that the armchair light counting survey didn’t catch the fact the temperature sensor is parked over an aluminum boat next to a building, on a steel tower over a rocky surface. How hot could that be? I presume the boat is there for a fast getaway in case of catastrophic sea level rise.

But this armchair survey didn’t catch things like air conditioners blowing hot exhaust air on sensors, or the Marysville Fire Department parking their vehicles within 6 feet of the sensor, or the fact that Tahoe City had a new tennis court put up 25 feet away and a trash burn barrel located next to the station. And when the really embarrassingly bad weather stations Russ and I documented started showing up, the pro warming folks had to do something because it challenged the very data itself.

The www.surfacestations.org site has been up two days now, and I’m getting hundreds of registrations across the country from people wanting to get involved in the grass roots effort to photograph, measure, catalog and contribute to the database of weather stations. I’m getting inquires from Congress, Policy think tanks, and bloggers worldwide. I even had a mom who’s driving cross country with her daughter contact me to ask how she could participate.

BTW you can sign up to help, its free, easy, and fun too. Find the stations can be a bit of a puzzle, like GPS caching.

I’ve been invited to submit a research paper, and I’m having a lot of fun too. Now I know why I lost the school board election, it was to give me time to do this. Everything happens for a reason...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2)  NEWS Updated 11/04/2011 from Surface Stations

NEWS Updated 11/04/2011  After months of work, our paper has been accepted, read summaries on the paper at these locations:
Dr. Roger Pielke Senior's website here
Dr. John Neilsen-Gammon's website here
Anthony Watts website here
Media Resource - download PDF here
Link to the paper (final print quality), Fall et al 2011 here (updated)
Fall et all 2011 supplementary information here

Surfacestations project reaches 82.5% of the network surveyed. 1007 of 1221 stations have been examined in the USHCN network. The Google Earth map below shows current coverage.
USHCN surveyed 7-14-09

crn_ratings
Reference for site ratings: NOAA's Climate Reference Network Site Handbook Section 2.2.1
Sincere thanks to Gary Boden and Barry Wise for this contribution!
SurfaceStationsReportCoverMid term census report of the Surface Stations Project: Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable? - click cover image at left to download a PDF document. Now at 80%, and with a majority sample that is spatially well distributed, a full analysis will be coming in the next few months. We will however continue to survey stations in the hope of locating more CRN1 and CRN2 stations due to their rarity.
The upcoming papers will feature statistical analysis of the nationwide USHCN network in the context of siting.

Direct link to PDF of the report is here

HELP NEEDED FOR SURVEYS IN THE FOLLOWING STATES:
Kansas, Nebraska, Arkansas, Illinois, Missouri, North Dakota, Idaho, South Dakota, Texas.
Excerpt graphics from the report are below:
 

Station quality ratings obtained from NOAA/NCDC via this source:
Climate Reference Network Rating Guide - adopted from NCDC Climate Reference Network Handbook, 2002, specifications for siting (section 2.2.1) of NOAA's new Climate Reference Network:Class 1 (CRN1)- Flat and horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface with a slope below 1/3 (<19deg). Grass/low vegetation ground cover <10 centimeters high. Sensors located at least 100 meters from artificial heating or reflecting surfaces, such as buildings, concrete surfaces, and parking lots. Far from large bodies of water, except if it is representative of the area, and then located at least 100 meters away. No shading when the sun elevation >3 degrees.

Class 2 (CRN2) - Same as Class 1 with the following differences. Surrounding Vegetation <25 centimeters. No artificial heating sources within 30m. No shading for a sun elevation >5deg.

Class 3 (CRN3) (error >=1C) - Same as Class 2, except no artificial heating sources within 10 meters.

Class 4 (CRN4) (error >= 2C) - Artificial heating sources <10 meters.

Class 5 (CRN5) (error >= 5C) - Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface."



 


Get Involved! help us document weather stations in the USA and the world.
Odd and irregular observing Sites looking at some of these observing sites you have to wonder: "what were they thinking"?
Resources links to useful and pertinent documents, images, drawings, specifications, and web sites.
Visit the blog to see highlighted examples of poorly sited stations in the "How Not to measure Temperature" series.

Site launched on 06/04/07
Progress as of 11/04/2011
USHCN Sites surveyed so far:
1068
USHCN Sites rated so far:
1007
USHCN Sites remaining:
214 

"This is a very important need for the climate science community, and you are encouraged to obtain this photographic documentation if you can, and also share with the new website under development by Anthony Watts"
- Roger Pielke Sr., University of Colorado, June 1st, 2007

Other news:
Florida Completed!
Nevada USHCN surveys completed
California USHCN surveys completed! See all California stations here
Louisiana has only three stations left, Franklin, Lafayette, and Plain Dealing Any takers?
A look at how changes in paint on Stevenson Screens may have affected temperature measurement.
Now Online: Conference presentation given at CIRES/UCAR on 8/29/07 describing this project and the methods used to assign station site quality ratings, along with examples of many site issues seen thus far. Click to view slideshow
Special recognition to five volunteers; Bob Thompson, Eric Gamberg, Russ Steele, David Smith, and Don Kostuch, who turned summer travels into survey expeditions. Don Kostuch has surveyed more stations, and covered a broader geographic area than any other surveyor. Thanks to all!


Here is a well maintained and well sited USHCN station:
 
Graph is from NASA GISS - see it full size
Click pictures for complete site surveys of these stations
Here is a not-so-well maintained or well sited USHCN station:

Graph is from NASA GISS - see it full size
This site in Marysville, CA has been around for about the same amount of time, but
has been encroached upon by growth in a most serious way by micro-site effects.

What you'll find here

  • Site surveys of USHCN, GHCN, CWO, and other weather station networks
  • Photographic views and sketches of instrumental sitings
  • Historical notes on each station when available
  • Survey notes about nearby objects, surfaces, and sensor placement
  • Supplemental notes and photographs when applicable
I actually love the odd sites link...

Then there are the Darwinist geologists who KNOW that Uniformitarianism is a joke.  The sedimentary rock layers (this should have been obvious?) were formed catastrophically.   Can anyone say, "Flood?"  So (and I cannot make this stuff up) these geologists have termed their assumptions "Actualism!"    I had to laugh.   I mean, really, you are that bad off that you have to completely cover your arguments with bull manure?   This development will absolutely deserve it's own blogpost before long.   Let me show you a couple of actual weather stations being used by climate alarmists to try to make you think the Earth is in trouble and we need to help it. 

Forest Grove

Roseburg

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Just for fun, since we will go back to dating and Flood evidence next...

The Titanic illustrates Noah’s Flood

Titanic’s last hours from collision at 11:40 pm until sinking at 2:20 am. (from Titanic sinking animation by Prioryman on Wikipedia)
This year marks one hundred years since the Titanic sank, with tragic loss of life. A few years ago my wife and I visited a cemetery in Halifax, Nova Scotia, where some of those who perished were laid to rest. The images (above) illustrate its last two hours and forty minutes following its collision with the iceberg, at 11:40 pm on Sunday 14 April 1912.

A catastrophe involving such a large object takes time to unfold. After the Titanic struck the iceberg, water gushed into the starboard side of the ship near its prow. Although the flow of water was large, it took a couple of hours to cause the ship to sink because of its enormous size. As it filled, the prow slowly sank into the ocean, raising the stern. At around 2:18 am the ship suddenly broke in two. The forward section sank to the bottom of the ocean, while the aft section floated vertically briefly before disappearing beneath the waves and following the prow to the bottom.

When the Titanic collided with the iceberg, it set in train a sequence of events that continued for more than two hours until the ship reached a new equilibrium on the ocean bottom. This process can be used as an illustration of the catastrophe of Noah’s Flood, which engulfed our globe.

The Flood began, according to the Bible with a breaking up of the fountains of the great deep, and the opening of the windows of heaven (Genesis 7:11). The Flood involved a train of events that followed a logical sequence of cause and effect, until the earth reached a new equilibrium. Because the earth is so much larger than the Titanic, the catastrophe of the Flood took much longer to unfold. The Bible records it lasted for just over 12 months. Ongoing climatic effects continued for hundreds of years.

During Noah’s Flood, vast quantities of water moved over the surface of the earth, eroding the landscape and depositing sediment in enormous sedimentary basins. This redistribution of mass caused movement of the earth’s plates. This in turn generated huge volumes of molten magma, the movement of which further redistributed mass on the globe—laterally and radially. The cooling of the magma also affected the movement of plates and ocean levels. Through the process some parts of the earth’s crust gradually sank lower and others rose, until the earth eventually reached a new equilibrium, which we enjoy today.

Geological history is often presented as a list of disconnected events. We read about sedimentation, erosion, mountain building, volcanic eruptions, and ice ages, each separated from the other by tens of millions of years. With so much time between events they seem to be unrelated. However, by looking at geology as the unfolding of one huge catastrophe that overtook our globe, we can begin to connect the dots.

Authored by Tas Walker

 


Saturday, April 28, 2012

Modern Science Mistakes - Dating Part Three - Why Carbon-14 Dating Falsifies Evolution

As stated previously, the primary reason Darwinists and even Old Earth Creationists proclaim long ages for the Earth is the lack of understanding of the effects of a world-wide flood and the degradation of the power of the magnetic field.   Darwinists used to just LOVE carbon-14 dating until they discovered it limited the Earth to about a maximum age of 50,000 years.   They then began to pick things with incredibly long half-lives that cannot be calibrated well as a last resort, while Old Earth Creationists just do not understand that "science" has not "proved" long ages and therefore abandon the first and obvious meaning of Genesis in favor of a bunch of guys in lab coats.

When you abandon the Bible for the opinions of guys in lab coats, you take away the foundation of your faith in Christ.   When you lose your foundation of faith in Christ, you lose the power of Christianity and, when you lose the power of Christianity you stop seeing people getting saved and they wind up going to Hell.  Don't let people go to Hell, keep believing in the Bible as Truth in every area to which it speaks.

A Creationist Puzzle

50,000-Year-Old-Fossils

Keywords

Evolutionists aren’t the only ones who run into challenges when trying to reconcile radiocarbon dating with their view of history. How do creationists explain dates of 50,000 years?
Conventional geologists claim that fossils, coals, and diamonds are millions to billions of years old. Yet it has now been firmly established that they still contain measurable amounts of radiocarbon, which has a half-life (decay rate) of only 5,730 years.1
 
This creates a dilemma for conventional geology, as explained in Part 2 of this series.2 Absolutely no radiocarbon should be left in fossils, coals, and diamonds, because after just one million years it should have decayed away.

Yet the radiocarbon in these fossils, coals, and diamonds equates to “ages” of up to 55,000 years. This is much older than the biblical time frame of earth history, which attributes most fossils and coals to the global Flood of Noah’s day, about 4,350 years ago. What should Bible-believing Christians think about this apparent discrepancy?

Assumptions Change Estimate of Age

To solve this puzzle it is necessary to review the assumptions on which radiocarbon dating is based. These include:
  • The production rate of carbon-14 has always been the same in the past as now.
  • The atmosphere has had the same carbon-14 concentration in the past as now.
  • The biosphere (the places on earth where organisms live) has always had the same overall carbon-14 concentration as the atmosphere, due to the rapid transfer of carbon-14 atoms from the atmosphere to the biosphere.3
None of these assumptions is strictly correct, beyond a rough first approximation. Indeed, scientists have now documented that the atmosphere’s concentration of carbon-14 varies considerably according to latitude. They have also determined several geophysical causes for past and present fluctuations in carbon-14 production in the atmosphere.4
 
Specifically, we know that carbon-14 has varied in the past due to a stronger magnetic field on earth and changing cycles in sunspot activity. So when objects of known historical dates are dated using radiocarbon dating, we find that carbon-14 dates are accurate back to only about 400 BC.

The conventional scientific community ignores at least two factors that are crucial to recalibrating radiocarbon (so that it accounts for major changes in the biosphere and atmosphere that likely resulted from the Flood): (1) The earth’s magnetic field has been progressively stronger going back into the past, and (2) the Flood destroyed and buried a huge amount of carbon from the pre-Flood biosphere.

The Effect of a Past Stronger Magnetic Field

The evidence for the earth’s having a progressively stronger magnetic field in the past is based on reliable historical measurements5 and “fossil” magnetism trapped in ancient pottery.6, 7
 
A stronger magnetic field is significant because the magnetic field partly shields the earth from the influx of cosmic rays, which change nitrogen atoms into radioactive carbon-14 atoms. So a stronger magnetic field in the past would have reduced the influx of cosmic rays.

This in turn would have reduced the amount of radiocarbon produced in the atmosphere. If this were the case, the biosphere in the past would have had a lower carbon-14 concentration than it does today.
The best estimates indicate that the earth’s magnetic field was twice as strong 1,400 years ago, and possibly four times as strong 2,800 years ago. If this is true, the earth’s magnetic field would have been much stronger at the time of the Flood, and the carbon-14 levels would be significantly smaller.

So if you mistakenly assume that the radiocarbon levels in the atmosphere and biosphere have always been the same as they are today, you would erroneously estimate much older dates for early human artifacts, such as post-Babel wooden statuettes in Egypt. And that is exactly what conventional archaeology has done.

The Effect of More Carbon in the Pre-Flood Biosphere

An even more dramatic effect on the earth’s carbon-14 inventory would be the destruction and burial of all the carbon in the whole biosphere at the time of the Flood. Based on the enormous size of today’s coal beds, oil, oil shale, natural gas deposits, and all the fossils in limestones, shales, and sandstones, a huge quantity of plants and animals must have been alive when the Flood struck. It is conservatively estimated that the amount of carbon in the pre-Flood biosphere may have been many times greater than the amount of carbon in today’s biosphere.8
It is conservatively estimated that the amount of carbon in the pre-Flood biosphere may have been many times greater than the amount today.
We cannot yet know for certain how much radiocarbon (carbon-14) was in this pre-Flood carbon (a mixture of normal carbon-12 and carbon-14). Yet if the earth’s atmosphere started to produce carbon-14 (14C) at the Fall, then many radiocarbon atoms could have been in the pre-Flood biosphere by the time of the Flood, about 1,650 years after Creation.

However, if there was a whole lot more normal carbon (carbon-12, or 12C) in the pre-Flood biosphere, then the proportion of 14C to 12C would have been much less than the proportion in today’s biosphere.
So when scientists fail to account for so many more plants and animals in the pre-Flood biosphere and wrongly assume that plants buried in coal beds had the same proportion of carbon-14 as plants do today, their radiocarbon dating yields “ages” much higher than the true Flood age of about 4,350 years.

A Prediction Fulfilled

Now if this model of the earth’s past radiocarbon inventory is correct, then a logical prediction follows. Since all pre-Flood plants would have had the same low radiocarbon levels when they were buried, and they all formed into coal beds during that single Flood year, then those coal beds should all have the same low radiocarbon content.

They do! Samples from coal beds around the United States, ranging from Eocene to Pennsylvanian deposits, supposedly 40–320 million years old, all contain the same low radiocarbon levels equivalent to “ages” of 48,000–50,000 years.9
 
This makes sense only if these coal beds were all formed out of pre-Flood plants during the year-long Flood, about 4,350 years ago. Carbon-14 dates of the same value are expected in creation theory but contrary to the expectations of conventional old-earth theory.

The “Puzzle” Is Being Solved

So the radiocarbon “puzzle” can be solved, but only in the biblical framework for earth history. Research is therefore underway to find a means of recalibrating the radiocarbon “clock” to properly account for the Flood and its impact on dates for the post-Flood period to the present.

For example, conventional radiocarbon dating gives an age of “48,000 years” for a coal bed deposited during the Flood, about 4,350 years ago. This could be explained if the 14C/12C ratio at the time of the Flood was only 1/200th the ratio of the present world.

If scientists assume the ratio is 200 times greater than it really was, then their radiocarbon age estimate would be exaggerated by 43,650 years.10
 
In reality, calculations (described above) have led to estimates that the pre-Flood biosphere may have had more than 100 times the carbon-12 as the present earth. Using this information, we may be able to calculate how much carbon-14 was actually on the early earth at the Flood. This, in turn, would allow us to develop a proper interpretation of all carbon-14 dates.

Once the research is completed, one of the many exciting benefits is that it should be possible to begin more accurately dating any archeological artifact within the true chronology found in God’s Word.


Radiocarbon dating of fossils compares the amount of radioactive carbon atoms (C-14) to regular carbon atoms (C-12). Conventional dating methods assume the past ratio based on current levels. But what if these assumptions are wrong?

Lower Rate of Radiocarbon (C-14) Production

Cosmic rays bombard the earth’s atmosphere and produce neutrons. These neutrons collide with nitrogen atoms, changing them into radioactive carbon atoms (C-14).

Conventional dating assumes radiocarbon (C-14) production has remained stable. But the earth’s magnetic field, which protects the earth from cosmic rays, was once several times stronger than it is today. So we would expect much less radiocarbon to be produced in the past. That would result in much less C-14 compared to C-12.

Greater Volume of Regular Carbon (C-12)

Plants absorb carbon atoms during photosynthesis (mostly regular C-12 and little radioactive C-14). With a limited amount of radiocarbon to go around, more plants would mean less radiocarbon per plant.

Coventional dating assumes the volume of plants and animals in the world has remained relatively stable. But the abundance of fossils indicates that the pre-Flood world’s shallow seas and temperate climate supported much more plants and animals (containing mostly C-12) than today.

Lower Ratio of Radiocarbon (C-14) to Regular Carbon (C-12)

Radiocarbon begins to break down after plants and animals die. The amount of radiocarbon remaining determines the time that has passed. Conventional dating assumes the ratio of C-12 to C-14 was the same in animals in the past. But if the ratio was much lower in the animals in the past, then those animals would have much less radiocarbon to break down after they died. This would result in much younger dates than conventional methods assume.

Dr. Andrew Snelling holds a PhD in geology from the University of Sydney and has worked as a consultant research geologist to organizations in both Australia and America. Author of numerous scientific articles, Dr. Snelling is now director of research at Answers in Genesis–USA.
Help keep these daily articles coming. Support AiG.

Footnotes

  1. A. A. Snelling, “Radiocarbon Dating Part 1: Understanding the Basics,” Answers (Oct.–Dec. 2010), pp. 72–75. Back
  2. A. A. Snelling, “Radiocarbon Dating Part 2: Carbon–14 in Fossils and Diamonds—An Evolution Dilemma,” Answers (Jan.–Mar. 2011), pp. 72–75. Back
  3. S. Bowman, Interpreting the Past: Radiocarbon Dating (London: British Museum Publications, 1990), p. 14. Back
  4. Bowman, ref. 3, pp. 16–30; G. Faure and T. M. Mensing, Isotopes: Principles and Applications, 3rd edition (Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2005), pp. 614–625; A. P. Dickin, Radiogenic Isotope Geology, 2nd edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 383–398. Back
  5. T. G. Barnes, “Decay of the Earth’s Magnetic Field and the Geochronological Implications,” Creation Research Society Quarterly 8.1 (1971): 24–29. Back
  6. D. R. Humphreys, “Reversal of the Earth’s Magnetic Field during the Genesis Flood,” in Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, ed. R. E. Walsh, C. L. Brooks and R. S. Crowell, (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship, 1986), 2:113–126. What is “fossil” magnetism? The clay used to make pottery often contains mineral grains that are slightly magnetic. When the clay is baked, the grain’s magnetic field imprint at the time is “locked in” or fossilized. Back
  7. The strength of the earth’s magnetic field was not affected by field reversals. The sun also regularly experiences field reversals without loss of strength in the magnetic field. D. R. Humphreys, “Physical Mechanism for Reversal of the Earth’s Magnetic Field during the Flood, in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, ed. R. E. Walsh and C. L. Brooks (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship, 1990), 2: 129–142. Back
  8. R. H. Brown, “The Interpretation of C-14 Dates,” Origins 6 (1979): 30–44; J. R. Baumgardner, A. A. Snelling, D. R. Humphreys, and S. A. Austin, “Measurable 14C in Fossilized Organic Materials: Confirming the Young Earth Creation-Flood Model,” in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, ed. R. L. Ivey, Jr. (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship, 2003), pp. 127–147. Back
  9. J. R. Baumgardner, “14C Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth,” in Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, ed. L. Vardiman, A. A. Snelling, and E. F. Chaffin (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, and Chino Valley, Arizona: Creation Research Society, 2005), pp. 587–630; D. B. DeYoung, Thousands . . . Not Billions: Challenging an Icon of Evolution, Questioning the Age of the Earth (Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 2005), pp. 45–62. Back
  10. These numbers are calculated in terms of half-lives, discussed in this series’ previous article. If the modern ratio is 200 times greater than the ratio at the Flood, the error ends up being 7.618 carbon-14 half-lives, or 43,650 years! Back 
Noah's Flood has left all sorts of evidence.  Here is an example but there are plenty more.

'Eromanga Sea' covering Australia during 'Jurassic' (from ABC OZfossil website).
'Eromanga Sea' covering Australia during 'Cretaceous' (from ABC OZfossils website).

You can see evidence for Noah’s Flood everywhere but unless you know what you are looking for you will not recognize it. Did you know that geology books, museums and fossil websites describe the effects of the Flood in graphic detail, even giving special names to different aspects of it? 

The diagram at left is from the science section of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation website called called OZfossils. It says, “About one hundred and ten million years ago a shallow sea covered what is now arid inland Australia.”

This shallow inland sea has been called the Eromanga Sea and it is shown in the diagram. This is evidence for Noah’s Flood. The Bible says:
“The waters increased and lifted up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. The waters prevailed and greatly increased on the earth, and the ark moved about on the surface of the waters. And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. (Genesis 7:17–19)”
The reason why most scientists can explore this amazing geological evidence but not connect the dots is that they have the wrong search image in their minds. (These days we are well aware of how a scientist’s search image can affect their work.) Actually, the search philosophy they use was purposely designed in the early 1800s to avoid seeing Noah’s Flood. Some call that search image ‘uniformitarianism’, although geologists today prefer the term ‘actualism’.

Let’s mention a few of the many reasons why they don’t see the Flood.
  • The dates are wrong. They say it was 100 million years ago, so no one connects that it is actually Noah’s Flood they are looking at. But the dates were assigned by assuming the sediments were deposited slowly, when in fact they were deposited catastrophically. Hence the imaginary time disappears. Geologists these days routinely recognize that sedimentation was rapid, especially considering the enormous dinosaur fossils preserved in the area.
  • It was not a past environment. They assume they are looking at environments that existed for thousands, even millions of years. However, the kilometre thicknesses of sediments were deposited rapidly over a period of weeks or months during the Flood, as the waters were rising on the earth. (See Great Artesian Basin.)
  • The vegetation did not grow in the area. They assume the vegetation grew where it was buried, but it was carried into the area after being ripped out the places where it did grow. What we are looking at was not a lush rainforest but the place where the debris was dumped.
  • The animals did not normally live in the area. They assume the fosilized animals lived in the area. However, these were carried in by the floodwaters, some dead and some alive. The live ones continued to flee the rising waters (for a while) and we find their footprints at various places (see Dinosaur trackways (pdf)). The dead ones were buried in sediments in the area (had to be buried rapidly and lots of sediment). That is why is it common to find land and sea animals buried together. Also it is common to find animals and plants from warm climates fossilized in areas that now have cold climates (see Paradox of warm climate vegetation in Antarctica).
  • The sea covered the whole of Australia, not just a proportion of it. In the above diagram,geologists show the extent of the inland sea according to the extent of the sediments that exist now. From the diagram we see there was a lot of Australia that was supposedly not covered with water at this time. However, the sediments covered a much greater area in the past. Kilometres of thickness and vast areas of sediment have been eroded away. This happened later in the Flood, especially as the floodwaters receded from the land (see discussion on Perth geology and Collie basin).
Next time you see a display about the geological history of Australia, or wherever you live, realise that they are reporting evidence for Noah’s Flood. Once you understand the way they think, you can connect the dots and see Noah’s Flood in graphic detail.

Tags: , , , , ,

Thursday, April 26, 2012

Modern Science Mistakes - Dating Part Two - Why Carbon-14 Dating Falsifies Evolution

Pretty simple, really.   All sedimentary rock layers contain material that has carbon-14 within it, even diamonds!   Therefore all the observed fossils and traces of life on the planet is dated in thousands, not millions, of years.   Tas Walker and Andrew Snelling are scientists with many years of experience in the field and labs.   I will let them continue the overview of dating methods and particularly Carbon-14 and how it falsifies Darwinism.  Andrew Snelling first:


Carbon-14 in Fossils and Diamonds

Keywords




  If the radioactive element carbon-14 breaks down quickly—within a few thousand years—why do we still find it in fossils and diamonds? It’s a dilemma for evolutionists, who believe the rocks are millions of years old.

Many people think that scientists use radiocarbon to date fossils. After all, we should be able to estimate how long ago a creature lived based on how much radiocarbon is left in its body, right?

Why Isn’t Radiocarbon Used to Date Fossils?

The answer is a matter of basic physics. Radiocarbon (carbon-14) is a very unstable element that quickly changes into nitrogen. Half the original quantity of carbon-14 will decay back to the stable element nitrogen-14 after only 5,730 years. (This 5,730-year period is called the half-life of radiocarbon, Figure 1).1 2 At this decay rate, hardly any carbon-14 atoms will remain after only 57,300 years (or ten half-lives).
So if fossils are really millions of years old, as evolutionary scientists claim, no carbon-14 atoms would be left in them. Indeed, if all the atoms making up the entire earth were radiocarbon, then after only 1 million years absolutely no carbon-14 atoms should be left!

The Power of Radiocarbon Detection Technology

Most laboratories measure radiocarbon with a very sophisticated instrument called an accelerator mass spectrometer, or AMS. It is literally able to count carbon-14 atoms one at a time.3 This machine can theoretically detect one radioactive carbon-14 atom in 100 quadrillion regular carbon-12 atoms!
However, there’s a catch. AMS instruments need to be checked occasionally, to make sure they aren’t also “reading” any laboratory contamination, called background. So rock samples that should read zero are occasionally placed into the instruments to test their accuracy. What better samples to use than fossils, coals, and limestones, which are supposed to be millions of years old and should have no radiocarbon?

Radiocarbon Found!

Imagine the surprise when every piece of “ancient” carbon tested has contained measurable quantities of radiocarbon!4 Fossils, coal, oil, natural gas, limestone, marble, and graphite from every Flood-related rock layer—and even some pre-Flood deposits—have all contained measurable quantities of radiocarbon (Figure 2). All these results have been reported in the conventional scientific literature.

Figures 1 and 2
Figure 1 Radiocarbon has a very short half-life. At current decay rates, the number of radiocarbon atoms is halved every 5,730 years. Because of this exponential decay, carbon-14 atoms can’t survive millions of years.
Figure 2 Radiocarbon shouldn’t be found in “old” rocks, but it is! Once creatures die, the radiocarbon in their bodies should quickly break down. After millions of years, their remains would be completely free of radiocarbon. But samples of organic materials taken from every rock layer, such as fossils, coal, limestone, natural gas, and graphite, all have measurable radiocarbon. These findings are reported in the secular scientific literature (but they are usually rejected as measurement errors).
This chart shows the percentage of radiocarbon that remains in 40 samples from various layers throughout the geologic column. (This percentage, technically known as percent modern carbon [pMC], shows the ratio of radiocarbon in the rocks and fossils compared to the amount we find in living things).
This finding is consistent with the belief that rocks are only thousands of years old, but the specialists who obtained these results have definitely not accepted this conclusion. It does not fit their presuppositions. To keep from concluding that the rocks are only thousands of years old, they claim that the radiocarbon must be due to contamination, either from the field or from the laboratory or from both. However, when the technician meticulously cleans the rocks with hot strong acids and other pre-treatments to remove any possible contamination, these “ancient” organic (once-living) materials still contain measurable radiocarbon.
Since a blank sample holder in the AMS instrument predictably yields zero radiocarbon, these scientists should naturally conclude that the radiocarbon is “intrinsic” to the rocks. In other words, real radiocarbon is an integral part of the “ancient” organic materials. But these scientists’ presuppositions prevent them from reaching this conclusion.

Radiocarbon in Fossils Confirmed

Figure 3
Photo courtesy of Dr. Andrew Snelling
Figure 3 Sample from Marlstone Rock Bed, a muddy limestone in one wall of the Hornton Quarries at Edge Hill, west of Banbury in England. Pieces of fossilized wood in Jurassic rocks, supposedly millions of years old, yielded radiocarbon “ages” of only 20,700–28,820 years.


For some years creation scientists have been doing their own investigation of radiocarbon in fossils. Pieces of fossilized wood in Oligocene, Eocene, Cretaceous, Jurassic, Triassic, and Permian rock layers supposedly 32–250 million years old all contain measurable radiocarbon, equivalent to “ages” of 20,700 to 44,700 years (Figures 3–5).5 6 7 8 9 10 11(Creation geologists believe that with careful recalibration, even these extremely “young” time periods would be fewer than 10,000 years.)
Similarly, carefully sampled pieces of coal from ten U.S. coal beds, ranging from Eocene to Pennsylvanian and supposedly 40–320 million years old, all contained similar radiocarbon levels equivalent to “ages” of 48,000 to 50,000 years.12 Even fossilized ammonite shells found alongside fossilized wood in a Cretaceous layer, supposedly 112–120 million years old, contained measurable radiocarbon equivalent to “ages” of 36,400 to 48,710 years (Figure 5).13

Figure 4
Photo courtesy of Dr. Andrew Snelling
Figure 4 Sample from mudstone on top of the Great Northern Seam in the upper Permian Newcastle Coal Measures in the Newvale No. 2 Coal Mine north of Sydney, Australia. A fossilized tree stump, found in Permian layers, supposedly hundreds of millions of years old, yielded coalified bark with a radiocarbon “age” of 33,700 years.

Figure 5
Photo courtesy of Dr. Andrew Snelling
Figure 5 These fossils were in mudstone of the lower Cretaceous Budden Canyon Formation near Redding, California. A fossilized ammonite (a marine shellfish) was discovered with a piece of fossilized wood (from a land plant) embedded next to it. Located in Cretaceous layers that were supposedly millions of years old, the fossilized shell and wood yielded radiocarbon “ages” of 48,710 and 42,390 years respectively.

Radiocarbon is Even in Diamonds


Just as intriguing is the discovery of measurable radiocarbon in diamonds. Creationist and evolutionary geologists agree that diamonds are formed more than 100 miles (161 km) down, deep within the earth’s upper mantle, and do not consist of organic carbon from living things. Explosive volcanoes brought them to the earth’s surface very rapidly in “pipes.”
As the hardest known natural substance, these diamonds are extremely resistant to chemical corrosion and external contamination. Also, the tight bonding in their crystals would have prevented any carbon-14 in the atmosphere from replacing any regular carbon atoms in the diamond.
Yet diamonds have been tested and shown to contain radiocarbon equivalent to an “age” of 55,000 years.14 15 These results have been confirmed by other investigators.16 So even though these diamonds are conventionally regarded by evolutionary geologists as up to billions of years old, this radiocarbon has to be intrinsic to them.
This carbon-14 would have been implanted in them when they were formed deep inside the earth, and it could not have come from the earth’s atmosphere. This is not such a problem for creationist scientists, but it is a serious problem for evolutionists.

The Radiocarbon “Puzzle”

Evolutionary radiocarbon scientists have still not conceded that fossils, coals, and diamonds are only thousands of years old. Their uniformitarian (slow-and-gradual) interpretation requires that the earth’s rocks be millions or billions of years old. They still maintain that the carbon-14 is “machine background” contaminating all these tested samples.
Among their proposed explanations is that the AMS instruments do not properly reset themselves between sample analyses. But if this were true, why would the instrument find zero atoms when no sample is in it?
It should be noted that radiocarbon “ages” of up to 50,000 years don’t match the biblical time frame, either. The Flood cataclysm was only about 4,350 years ago. However, these young radiocarbon “ages” are far more in accord with the Bible’s account than the uniformitarian timescale. The discovery that diamonds have 55,000-year radiocarbon “ages” may help us unravel this mystery.
The article in the next issue of Answers magazine will examine how it may be possible to systematically correct radiocarbon “ages.” Once radiocarbon is interpreted properly, it should help creationists date archaeological remains from post-Flood human history, showing how they fit within the Bible’s chronology.
Dr. Andrew Snelling holds a PhD in geology from the University of Sydney and has worked as a consultant research geologist to organizations in both Australia and America. Author of numerous scientific articles, Dr. Snelling is now director of research at Answers in Genesis–USA.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DATING SECRETSPrintE-mail
Digg!
Creation Magazine Volume 24 Issue 4 CoverFirst published:
Creation 24(4):20–23
September 2002

The way it really is: little-known facts about radiometric dating

by Tas Walker

Long-age geologists will not accept a radiometric date unless it matches their pre-existing expectations.


Many people think that radiometric dating has proved the Earth is millions of years old. That’s understandable, given the image that surrounds the method. Even the way dates are reported (e.g. 200.4 ± 3.2 million years) gives the impression that the method is precise and reliable (box below).
However, although we can measure many things about a rock, we cannot directly measure its age. For example, we can measure its mass, its volume, its colour, the minerals in it, their size and the way they are arranged. We can crush the rock and measure its chemical composition and the radioactive elements it contains. But we do not have an instrument that directly measures age.
dating
Before we can calculate the age of a rock from its measured chemical composition, we must assume what radioactive elements were in the rock when it formed.1 And then, depending on the assumptions we make, we can obtain any date we like.

It may be surprising to learn that evolutionary geologists themselves will not accept a radiometric date unless they think it is correct—i.e. it matches what they already believe on other grounds. It is one thing to calculate a date. It is another thing to understand what it means.

So, how do geologists know how to interpret their radiometric dates and what the ‘correct’ date should be?

Field relationships

 

A geologist works out the relative age of a rock by carefully studying where the rock is found in the field. The field relationships, as they are called, are of primary importance and all radiometric dates are evaluated against them.

For example, a geologist may examine a cutting where the rocks appear as shown in Figure 1. Here he can see that some curved sedimentary rocks have been cut vertically by a sheet of volcanic rock called a dyke. It is clear that the sedimentary rock was deposited and folded before the dyke was squeezed into place.
figure 1
Figure 1
figure 2
Figure 2 Cross-section
By looking at other outcrops in the area, our geologist is able to draw a geological map which records how the rocks are related to each other in the field. From the mapped field relationships, it is a simple matter to work out a geological cross-section and the relative timing of the geologic events. His geological cross-section may look something like Figure 2.

Clearly, Sedimentary Rocks A were deposited and deformed before the Volcanic Dyke intruded them. These were then eroded and Sedimentary Rocks B were deposited.

The geologist may have found some fossils in Sedimentary Rocks A and discovered that they are similar to fossils found in some other rocks in the region. He assumes therefore that Sedimentary Rocks A are the same age as the other rocks in the region, which have already been dated by other geologists. In the same way, by identifying fossils, he may have related Sedimentary Rocks B with some other rocks.
Creationists would generally agree with the above methods and use them in their geological work.

From his research, our evolutionary geologist may have discovered that other geologists believe that Sedimentary Rocks A are 200 million years old and Sedimentary Rocks B are 30 million years old. Thus, he already ‘knows’ that the igneous dyke must be younger than 200 million years and older than 30 million years. (Creationists do not agree with these ages of millions of years because of the assumptions they are based on.2)

Because of his interest in the volcanic dyke, he collects a sample, being careful to select rock that looks fresh and unaltered. On his return, he sends his sample to the laboratory for dating, and after a few weeks receives the lab report.

Let us imagine that the date reported by the lab was 150.7 ± 2.8 million years. Our geologist would be very happy with this result. He would say that the date represents the time when the volcanic lava solidified. Such an interpretation fits nicely into the range of what he already believes the age to be. In fact, he would have been equally happy with any date a bit less than 200 million years or a bit more than 30 million years. They would all have fitted nicely into the field relationships that he had observed and his interpretation of them. The field relationships are generally broad, and a wide range of ‘dates’ can be interpreted as the time when the lava solidified.

What would our geologist have thought if the date from the lab had been greater than 200 million years, say 350.5 ± 4.3 million years? Would he have concluded that the fossil date for the sediments was wrong? Not likely. Would he have thought that the radiometric dating method was flawed? No. Instead of questioning the method, he would say that the radiometric date was not recording the time that the rock solidified. He may suggest that the rock contained crystals (called xenocrysts) that formed long before the rock solidified and that these crystals gave an older date.3He may suggest that some other very old material had contaminated the lava as it passed through the earth. Or he may suggest that the result was due to a characteristic of the lava—that the dyke had inherited an old ‘age’.

The error is not the real error

lava
The convention for reporting dates (e.g. 200.4 ± 3.2 million years) implies that the calculated date of 200.4 million years is accurate to plus or minus 3.2 million years. In other words, the age should lie between 197.2 million years and 203.6 million years. However, this error is not the real error on the date. It relates only to the accuracy of the measuring equipment in the laboratory. Even different samples of rock collected from the same outcrop would give a larger scatter of results. And, of course, the reported error ignores the huge uncertainties in the assumptions behind the ‘age’ calculation. These include the assumption that decay rates have never changed. In fact, decay rates have been increased in the laboratory by factors of billions of times.1 Creationist physicists point to several lines of evidence that decay rates have been faster in the past, and propose a pulse of accelerated decay during Creation Week, and possibly a smaller pulse during the Flood year.2 Return to text.

References

 

1) Woodmorappe, J., Billion-fold acceleration of radioactivity demonstrated in laboratory, TJ15(2):4–6, 2001.


2)Vardiman, L., Snelling, A.A. and Chaffin, E.F., Radioisotopes and the age of the Earth, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, California and Creation Research Society, St. Joseph, Missouri, USA, 2000.

What would our geologist think if the date from the lab were less than 30 million years, say 10.1 ± 1.8 million years? No problem. Would he query the dating method, the chronometer? No. He would again say that the calculated age did not represent the time when the rock solidified. He may suggest that some of the chemicals in the rock had been disturbed by groundwater or weathering.4 Or he may decide that the rock had been affected by a localized heating event—one strong enough to disturb the chemicals, but not strong enough to be visible in the field.

No matter what the radiometric date turned out to be, our geologist would always be able to ‘interpret’ it. He would simply change his assumptions about the history of the rock to explain the result in a plausible way. G. Wasserburg, who received the 1986 Crafoord Prize in Geosciences, said, ‘There are no bad chronometers, only bad interpretations of them!’5 In fact, there is a whole range of standard explanations that geologists use to ‘interpret’ radiometric dating results.

Why use it?

 

Someone may ask, ‘Why do geologists still use radiometric dating? Wouldn’t they have abandoned the method long ago if it was so unreliable?’ Just because the calculated results are not the true ages does not mean that the method is completely useless. The dates calculated are based on the isotopic composition of the rock. And the composition is a characteristic of the molten lava from which the rock solidified. Therefore, rocks in the same area which give similar ‘dates’ are likely to have formed from the same lava at about the same time during the Flood. So, although the assumptions behind the calculation are wrong and the dates are incorrect, there may be a pattern in the results that can help geologists understand the relationships between igneous rocks in a region.

Contrary to the impression that we are given, radiometric dating does not prove that the Earth is millions of years old. The vast age has simply been assumed.2 The calculated radiometric ‘ages’ depend on the assumptions that are made. The results are only accepted if they agree with what is already believed. The only foolproof method for determining the age of something is based on eyewitness reports and a written record. We have both in the Bible. And that is why creationists use the historical evidence in the Bible to constrain their interpretations of the geological evidence.

What if the rock ages are not ‘known’ in advance—does radio-dating give coherent results?

Recently, I conducted a geological field trip in the Townsville area, North Queensland. A geological guidebook,1 prepared by two geologists, was available from a government department.
The guidebook’s appendix explains ‘geological time and the ages of rocks.’ It describes how geologists use field relationships to determine the relative ages of rocks. It also says that the ‘actual’ ages are measured by radiometric dating—an expensive technique performed in modern laboratories. The guide describes a number of radiometric methods and states that for ‘suitable specimens the errors involved in radiometric dating usually amount to several percent of the age result. Thus … a result of two hundred million years is expected to be quite close (within, say, 4 million) to the true age.’

This gives the impression that radiometric dating is very precise and very reliable—the impression generally held by the public. However, the appendix concludes with this qualification: ‘Also, the relative ages [of the radiometric dating results] must always be consistent with the geological evidence. … if a contradiction occurs, then the cause of the error needs to be established or the radiometric results are unacceptable’.

This is exactly what our main article explains. Radiometric dates are only accepted if they agree with what geologists already believe the age should be.

Townsville geology is dominated by a number of prominent granitic mountains and hills. However, these are isolated from each other, and the area lacks significant sedimentary strata. We therefore cannot determine the field relationships and thus cannot be sure which hills are older and which are younger. In fact, the constraints on the ages are such that there is a very large range possible.
We would expect that radiometric dating, being allegedly so ‘accurate,’ would rescue the situation and provide exact ages for each of these hills. Apparently, this is not so.

Concerning the basement volcanic rocks in the area, the guidebook says, ‘Their exact age remains uncertain.’ About Frederick Peak, a rhyolite ring dyke in the area, it says, ‘Their age of emplacement is not certain.’ And for Castle Hill, a prominent feature in the city of Townsville, the guidebook says, ‘The age of the granite is unconfirmed.’

No doubt, radiometric dating has been carried out and precise ‘dates’ have been obtained. It seems they have not been accepted because they were not meaningful.

Reference

 

1) Trezise, D.L. and Stephenson, P.J., Rocks and landscapes of the Townsville district,Department of Resource Industries, Queensland, 1990.

 

References and notes

 

1) In addition to other unprovable assumptions, e.g. that the decay rate has never changed.

2) Evolutionary geologists believe that the rocks are millions of years old because they assume they were formed very slowly. They have worked out their geologic timescale based on this assumption. This timescale deliberately ignores the catastrophic effects of the Biblical Flood, which deposited the rocks very quickly.

3) This argument was used against creationist work that exposed problems with radiometric dating. Laboratory tests on rock formed from the 1980 eruption of Mt St Helens gave ‘ages’ of millions of years. Critics claimed that ‘old’ crystals contained in the rock contaminated the result. However, careful measurements by Dr Steve Austin showed this criticism to be wrong. See Swenson, K., Radio-dating in rubble, Creation23(3):23–25, 2001.

4) This argument was used against creationist work done on a piece of wood found in sandstone near Sydney, Australia, that was supposed to be 230 million years old. Critics claimed that the carbon-14 results were ‘too young’ because the wood had been contaminated by weathering. However, careful measurements of the carbon-13 isotope refuted this criticism. See Snelling, A.A., Dating dilemma: fossil wood in ‘ancient’ sandstone, Creation21(3):39–41, 1999.

5) Wasserburg, G.J., Isotopic abundances: inferences on solar system and planetary evolution, Earth and Planetary Sciences Letters86:129–173, 150, 1987.