This is a powerful post from the creation scientists at the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the granddaddy of all creationist outfits, the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom. It’s titled Radiocarbon in Yet Another Dinosaur Fossil, written by Brian Thomas. At the end it says: “Dr. Thomas is Research Associate at the Institute for Creation Research and earned his Ph.D. in paleobiochemistry from the University of Liverpool.” Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:
Creation-based thinking made a testable prediction. [Really?] If Noah’s Flood formed dinosaur and other fossils only 4,500 or so years ago, then they may still contain measurable amounts of the short-lived radioactive isotope carbon-14 — also called radiocarbon. On the other hand, any fossil deposited before the limit of carbon-14 longevity (around 100,000 theoretical years ago) would have no carbon-14 left.
There are many problems with that. First is the notion that creationism makes a testable prediction. Most of the creationists whose writings we encounter have no idea what that means, because their creationism is entirely based on faith. Also, because creationists are always claiming that the Earth is young, they deny the value of Radiometric dating — not just Carbon 14, but all of it. They say that radioactive decay rates may have been different in the past, so it’s wrong to rely on them. Brian himself recently said so. It’s his third point in ICR: Ten ‘Fake Facts’ of Evolution. Finally, if the Earth (and therefore all fossils) were young, then why wouldn’t every fossil contain carbon-14?
Anyway, Brian says:
Examples of radiocarbon discoveries that are out-of-place for evolutionary time keep stacking up. Medical doctor Paul Giem accumulated dozens of examples back in 2001. [Link in a footnote.] His long list of secular publications cited radiocarbon in coal, oil, and marble. It inspired the ICR RATE project to look for radiocarbon in deeply buried coal and in supposedly ancient diamonds. RATE found radiocarbon at levels above the background blanks in all samples. [Footnote reference to ICR]
The TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims has lots of useful information on this. See, e.g.: Coal and oil are supposedly millions of years old. Effectively all of the carbon-14 in a sample would have decayed in that time. But carbon-14 still exists in coal, implying an age of only about 50,000 years.
Anyway, Brian tells us:
In our 2015 report of new fossil samples with radiocarbon, coauthor Vance Nelson and I summarized a few dozen already published wood, shell, and bone fossils that bore evolutionary ages far in excess of their radiocarbon levels. That list had almost fifty samples. [Almost fifty!] Now, a Chicago Field Museum-led team published one more in the journal eLife. [Footnote to Cretaceous dinosaur bone contains recent organic material and provides an environment conducive to microbial communities.] It seems as though almost everywhere we look, we find young-looking carbon.
Yeah, it’s everywhere! He continues:
ICR physicist Jake Hebert’s words from 2013 seem more appropriate today than ever:
[He quotes the ICR creation scientist:] At some point, the contamination excuse begins to wear thin. Furthermore, contamination should not be assumed without good cause to suspect that it has occurred — and a test result that simply contradicts long-age dogma does not provide enough scientific reason to make such an assumption!
We agree. At some point, nonsense wears thin. Brian finishes with this:
With young-looking radiocarbon in over 60 [That many?] supposedly millions-of-years-old fossils, plus this new Centrosaurus [Wowie — that’s 61!], the contamination excuse is starting to look silly.
Somebody looks silly, we agree. So who is it, dear reader? The creation scientists, or the hell-bound evolutionists?
Copyright © 2019. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.