THIS IS THE FIFTH 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:

Natural gas from Alabama and Mississippi (Cretaceous and Eocene, respectively) — should have been 50 to 135 million years old. C14 gave dates of 30,000 and 34,000, respectively. Source

Analysis:

False information due to sloppy research and lack of familiarity with radiocarbon dating.

This was another difficult reference to track down because the original source is not provided. It appears that each creationist website just copies from the previous without checking the original citation. (The information in question originates in Radiocarbon, Vol. 8, page 200.)

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 paragraphs describing these two samples:

I-1149. Sealy Springs well, Alabama — >34,000

From Sealy Springs Well, Cottonwood, Houston County, Alabama. Well yielding salt water and natural gas, probably from Upper Cretaceous Eutaw sandstone. Comment (D.R.B.): sample submitted as control. Infinite age as expected.

I-1150. Maxie Gas Field, Mississippi — >30,000

From Lower and Upper Cretaceous, and Eocene formations in Maxie Gas Field, Forrest County, Mississippi. Comment (D.R.B.): control sample yielding infitite age as expected.

Note the little “>” symbols in front of the dates? This means “greater than” and denotes that the measured ages reflect the limits of the instrumentation rather than an actual age. In other words, the creationists either goofed and missed the “>” symbols, or hoped that nobody would check up on their research.

Rather than serving as an example of the inaccuracy of radiocarbon dating, this refuted creationist claim serves as another example of the inaccuracy of creationist research.

Reference

Trautman, Milton A. and Eric H. Willis. Isotopes, Inc. Radiocarbon Measurements V. Radiocarbon, Vol. 8, 1966, pp. 161-203.

Partial list of web pages containing this false claim:

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1053/
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dating-radiometric.htm
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html
http://nl.nntp2http.com/religie/2004/10/3960632203aa5c6194b2ff2aac366336.html
http://www.geocities.com/ajm920/bibleproof-baddates.html
http://christianessays.freeservers.com/jan.htm

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

http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/c14_results.php
http://www.detectingdesign.com/carbon14.html

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