Why C14 date a 17 ma magnolia leaf?

[npetreley]

Here are two reasons...

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

The radiocarbon (14C) results are listed in Table 1.8 It is immediately evident that there was detectable radiocarbon in all wood samples, so that the laboratoriesv staff had neither hesitation nor difficulties in calculating 14C ‘ages’. When subsequently questioned regarding the limits of the analytical method for the radiocarbon and any possibility of contamination, staff at both laboratories (Ph.D. scientists) were readily insistent that the results, with one exception,9 were within the detection limits and therefore provided quotable finite ‘ages’!8 Furthermore, they pointed to the almost identical d13C results (last column in Table 1), consistent with the carbon being organic carbon from wood, and indicating no possibility of contamination. So the results in Table 1 are staunchly defended by the laboratories as valid, indicating an ‘age’ of perhaps 44,000–45,500 years for the wood encased in the basalt retrieved from the drill core.

In stark contrast to the ‘age’ of the wood are the potassium-argon (K-Ar) ‘ages’ of the basalt (see Table 2).8 It is readily apparent that there are significant variations in the results, as evident in the calculated ‘ages’ of the outcrop 2 sample provided by each laboratory. The problem of obtaining consistently ‘acceptable’ K-Ar ‘ages’ is also highlighted by the observation that both outcrop and both drill core samples probably represent the same basalt flow in each respective location (hence the calculated average ‘ages’ in the last column of Table 210 The staff of both laboratories (again Ph.D. scientists) defended their analytical results,8,11 and did not hesitate to affirm that these basalt samples are, according to their radioactive K-Ar ‘dating’, around 45 million years old.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v21n3_date-dilemma.asp

The Hawkesbury Sandstone has been assigned a Middle Triassic ‘age’ of around 225–230 million years by most geologists.1,6,7 This is based on its fossil content, and on its relative position in the sequence of rock layers in the region (the Sydney Basin). All of these are placed in the context of the long ages timescale commonly assumed by geologists.

...

The analytical report from the laboratory indicated detectable radiocarbon had been found in the fossil wood, yielding a supposed 14C ‘age’ of 33,720 ± 430 years BP (before present). This result had been ‘13C corrected’ by the lab staff, after they had obtained a d13CPDB value of –24.0 ‰.9 This value is consistent with the analyzed carbon in the fossil wood representing organic carbon from the original wood, and not from any contamination. Of course, if this fossil wood really were 225–230 million years old as is supposed, it should be impossible to obtain a finite radiocarbon age, because all detectable 14C should have decayed away in a fraction of that alleged time — a few tens of thousands of years.

 

[Lacmeh]

This is utter Bogus.

First of all, the formulas describing the radioactive detoriation are proven. There are lots of Elements out there, that emit radioactive beams and the predictions out of the formulas about their stability is true.

Second, the radiocarbone method can only be used to trace back materials for about 100k years.

Third, the K-Ar Method cannot be used by selfrespecting scientists for the same ages than the radiocarbone method. Simply because of margin errors the resulting dates will result in for example 55k years +/-25k years.

Furthermore I am quite impressed, that the wood and Basalt in question could contain enough ARGON at encasing, because ARGON is a GAS.

Well for finding Kalium in wood, very impressive.

Since Kalium is one of the elements, that plants need for grtowth...

 

[Jerry Smith]

Ok.. npetreley, I expect you already know the answer, and I don't already know it, so I will try a different approach. Instead of going looking, I will ask you.

In the two cases mentioned, does it turn out that the basalt/sandstone are improperly dated to "ancient" ages, that the wood in them was shown by to have C14 by faulty methods, or that the wood was embedded in older rock during more recent, possibly historical times, by some immediately obvious process? Or is it that the wood in the basalt and the sandstone was not found embedded at all? Perhaps just shoved into a crack? Was it discovered and documented in situ?

In other words, I am asking the magician to reveal his trick first, before I go probing through the bag of tricks trying to discover it myself. If you don't know the answer, I e-mail and ask the same thing of the people at AiG. I'd like to see how they respond.

 

[ardipithecus]

Originally posted by npetreley

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v21n3_date-dilemma.asp

 

I recongnized this one.  The "wood" was not even wood among other fatal problems.

http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/crefaqs.htm#who

Have you yet to learn that you cannot trust anything from Answers in Genesis?  I guess not.