Carbon Dating Lab Got Owned by AiG

[Chris†opher Paul]

Ok, I am not really familiar with the whole topic, but for comedic relief, I present the following:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/382.asp

AiG sent some wood samples to carbon dating labs, and got back "easy" results from the lab.  They didn't tell the labs anything about the context of the tests.

Can you say, OWNED!

Conclusion:

"While the quality and accuracy of the analytical work undertaken by all the laboratories involved is unquestionably respected, all the calculated ‘ages’ are mere interpretations based on unproven assumptions about constancy of radioactive decay rates, and on the geochemical behaviour of these elements (and their isotopes) in the unobservable past. To young-earth creationists the geological context of these fossil wood fragments in the basalt lava flow clearly indicates that these represent post-Flood trees overwhelmed by a post-Flood volcanic eruption nearby, and thus both the fossil wood and the basalt are less than 4,500 years old.12

Nevertheless, within the conventional (uniformitarian) framework of interpretation, a clear-cut conflict can be seen between these two radioactive ‘dating’ methods. Normally fossil wood found in such an ‘ancient’ basalt would not be radiocarbon ‘dated’, because the wood would be considered far too old for any radiocarbon to be left in it.13 Yet here these radioactive ‘dating’ methods are again demonstrated to be unreliable and clearly useless at determining the true age of the wood and basalt. Therefore, any published results from these ‘dating’ methods should not be seen as casting any doubts whatsoever on the reliability of the Biblical chronology so carefully provided for us by the (always present) Creator Himself."

 

[Sky]

I know this is a stupid question, but what is the AiG?

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Answers in Genesis...a YEC organization...

YEC = Yound Earth Creationists

The point of the article is that carbon dating is flawed, thus, indirectly supporting a young earth stance.

 

[Sky]

YEC organizations are always out pushing their anti-science agenda, saying that the earth was created in a literal six days, that the earth is only 6000 years old, and that dinosaurs and ancient cretures either never existed or lived with man in recent times and are not extinct. Some even believe the earth is flat! This is not a personal attack on anyone, I'm just saying that YEC organizations should stop trying to disprove science (it's not gonna happen), and do something more productive with their lives.

Carbon dating is not flawed, it was never meant to present an exact age of a fossil, only to give a good estimate. The few cases where carbon dating has been way off is probably the result of human error and not the carbon dating method itself.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Carbon dating is not flawed, it was never meant to present an exact age of a fossil, only to give a good estimate. The few cases where carbon dating has been way off is probably the result of human error and not the carbon dating method itself.

Well, I am not that familiar with the topic, nor do I profess YEC, but the two carbon tests that I know about have both been dead wrong. Maybe someone else know more?

 

[FordPrefect]

So, the K-AR dating was around 45 million years... about 15 million off...
and the C14 was 45,000 years... which is the upper end of the c14 dating anyway... kinda like driving 180 mph in my really fast car, but the speedo only shows 120...

My point being that how does AiG come to the conclusion that the wood is 4,500 years old just because C14 bottomed out, and K-AR dated somewhat older than the geology would assume?

Did anyone else note the curious numbers?
4,500
45,000
45,000,000

 

[RufusAtticus]

The ages for the wood is about at the upper limit determinable by C-14 dating. I wonder how much confidence the lab placed in their findings.

 

[blader]

Originally posted by s0uljah
Well, I am not that familiar with the topic, nor do I profess YEC, but the two carbon tests that I know about have both been dead wrong. Maybe someone else know more?

You do realize that C14 isn't used to date the age of the earth? Scientists know that C14 becomes progressively less reliable as it approaches about 40,000 years, IIRC.

So if there were inconsistent results, all AiG did was to exploit a known limitation of carbon dating, which was already known by scientists, in order to edumacate the general public, who can now go around telling all the evolutionists how flawed "radiometric dating" is.

However, I don't think that the results are necessarily wrong:

Nevertheless, within the conventional (uniformitarian) framework of interpretation, a clear-cut conflict can be seen between these two radioactive ‘dating’ methods. Normally fossil wood found in such an ‘ancient’ basalt would not be radiocarbon ‘dated’, because the wood would be considered far too old for any radiocarbon to be left in it.13 Yet here these radioactive ‘dating’ methods are again demonstrated to be unreliable and clearly useless at determining the true age of the wood and basalt.14 Therefore, any published results from these ‘dating’ methods should not be seen as casting any doubts whatsoever on the reliability of the Biblical chronology so carefully provided for us by the (always present) Creator Himself.

In this case, shouldn't the wood be older than it dated out to be? And in addition, the only objection AiG had to the dates was that AiG with held information about the samples and where they got it from. If the samples were obviously unreliable to be C14 dated in the first place, then why do you think a real scientist would go and carbon date it anyway? Only AiG would do that.

Other than that, I don't see why you say AiG owned the labs.

Rather, AiG gets owned by science. Again.

 

[Morat]

  Isn't AIG the group that got all excited about odd C14 dates with mollusks?

  What's the motto of this story? "Garbage in, garbage out". In other words, if you date bad samples, you get bad answers. I'd be interested, of course, in seeing the actual lab report. Getting back a  45,000 year old minimum age would not be uncommon, especially given that you're hitting the edge of C14 usefulness with a perfect sample.

  Snelling has made a similiar claim in the past. Draw your own conclusions.

 

 

[seebs]

Carbon dating only works within certain assumptions; if you give someone material that doesn't match those assumptions, you get silly results.

Carbon dating is also almost entirely irrelevant to the age of the earth; that's a question for radiometric dating, which is an entirely different thing. Carbon dating doesn't work on anything that, for instance, has been fossilized for a long time, or anything like that... but it works pretty well on a small subset of cases.

All they've done is show GIGO; Garbage In, Garbage Out.

 

[Sky]

Yes.

 

[seebs]

It occurs to me that we could do a very good test from this of the accuracy of the theories that are behind modern carbon dating.

Find a scientist somewhere who has never heard this story, and who is familiar with carbon dating, and ask him what results he would *expect* to get when carbon dating such a sample. See if his answer is correct.

If his answer is "I don't know, it could quite likely come out at the far end of C14 dating, but you could get anything", then at least the theory is *consistent*, even if it has no way to get a meaningful date from that sample.

 

[Sky]

Yes.

 

[D. Scarlatti]

s0uljah summarizes: The point of the article is that carbon dating is flawed, thus, indirectly supporting a young earth stance.

This is a laughable non sequitur, but since you admit you don't know what you're talking about, you are forgiven.

s0uljah continues: ... the two carbon tests that I know about have both been dead wrong.

There are four "carbon test" results shown on your linked page, so now you know about four, although you haven't quite explained how any of them are "dead wrong."

If you would like to learn about five more independent c14 tests, look under 'Shroud of Turin.' See if they were "dead wrong" too.

 

[Morat]

  Or how about looking up the ones they used to calibrate the carbon rations in the atmosphere? The ones verified by known dates or tree-ring counting?

  It's an odd statement: "I only know of two, and neither worked". Well, no kidding, Sherlock. Where did you bloody well look? Did you try, I dunno, places where scientists were taking correct samples, submitting them to the correct methods, and using them? Maybe talk to a few archeaologists?

  Read a few journals? Where you expected correct C14 dates to fall out of the sky onto your head? "By Jove! I found 2 excellent C14 dates on the bus this morning".

   Why not look here as a good place to start.

 

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Morat and Scarletti-

Care to refute this:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp

 

[D. Scarlatti]

s0uljah, once again sidestepping his inability to justify the title of his latest post, asks:

"Care to refute this: How accurate is Carbon-14 dating? "

Refute what? Be specific. I for one am not wading through reams of creationist garbage.

Sum it up for us and explain how it refutes the usefulness of radiometric dating, and, better yet, explain how it "indirectly supports the young earth stance."

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

I for one am not wading through reams of creationist garbage.

LOL! Man, you a hilarious. You tracked my every post one day, tracked down every source I listed in a post, and have dissected many others, but now you won't "wade" through garbage? What makes my grabage so appealing?

 

[D. Scarlatti]

This isn't even your garbage. This is someone else's garbage. By the way, I'm not going to track down your "every post" this time when you fail to support your claims. Just sum up the article and make your claim. I assume you've read it, so that shouldn't be too much trouble. Hop to it.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by D. Scarlatti
This isn't even your garbage. This is someone else's garbage. By the way, I'm not going to track down your "every post" this time when you fail to support your claims. Just sum up the article and make your claim. I assume you've read it, so that shouldn't be too much trouble. Hop to it.

Well its good to know that you will only challenge my garbage, on a subject I admitted to being ignorant of, but you are scared to refute this one.