THIS IS THE FOURTH OF A CONTINUING SERIES examining what is being passed off as science on creationist websites.

This article examines a specific false claim made on numerous creationist websites in an attempt to discredit radiocarbon dating. A list of some of the websites repeating this false claim appears at the bottom of this article.

Claim:

Coal from Russia from the “Pennsylvanian,” supposedly 300 million years old, was dated at 1,680 years. (Radiocarbon, vol. 8, 1966) Source

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, 1966, pp. 292-323.

Partial list of web pages containing this false claim:

http://home.bluemarble.net/~heartcom/stillinthebeginning.html”
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1053/
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dating-radiometric.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v2/i2/carbon14.asp
http://answers.net.nz/Evolution/Sceptic11.htm

Partial list of web pages disputing or correcting this false claim:

http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/c14_results.php

A Look at Creation “Science” — Part VI
A Look at Creation “Science” — Part V
A Look at Creation “Science” — Part IV
A Look at Creation “Science” — Part III
A Look at Creation “Science” — Part II
A Look at Creation “Science” — Part I