Darwin Central
Coniuratio compatiens
  • What We Do
  • Who We Are
RSS FEED
A Look at Creation “Science” — Part VI
Jun 29th, 2007 by Bones | Comments Off

THIS IS THE SIXTH 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:

“Some time ago eleven human skeletons, remains of the earliest humans in the western hemisphere, were dated by this new `accelerator mass spectrometer’ technique to about 5000 radiocarbon years or less. [R.E.Taylor, `Major Revisions in the Pleistocene Age Assignments for the North American Human Skeletons by C-14 Accelerator Mass Spectrometry', American Antiquity, Vol. 50, No.1, 1985, pp. 136-140] Source

Analysis:

False information due to sloppy research and lack of familiarity with archaeology, amino acid racemization dating, and radiocarbon dating.

This claim seems to have originated with Walter T. Brown’s In the Beginning (1989), p. 95.

The major mistake made here is assuming that the original dates, all by amino acid racemization, were accurate, and the newer radiocarbon dates were wrong–probably out of a wish to show errors in the radiocarbon method. The opposite is true: the Taylor et al. article, by redating these specimens using the AMS method of radiocarbon dating, corrected the earlier, erroneous amino acid racemization age estimates.

But through lack of familiarity with science in general and these fields in particular, this correction of inaccurate amino acid racemization age estimates has been morphed by creationists into a condemnation of the radiocarbon dating method — a result the exact opposite of what the research actually showed! It was radiocarbon dating that corrected the earlier errors!

Are creationists so desperate to discredit dating methods that they are deliberately misrepresenting the actual facts, or are they just doing sloppy research? Probably the latter, but this practice is so common that one wonders.

Reference

Taylor, R.E., et al., Major Revisions in the Pleistocene Age Assignments for North American Human Skeletons by C-14 Accelerator Mass Spectrometry: None Older Than 11,000 C-14 Years B.P. American Antiquity, Vol. 50, No. 1, 1983, pp. 136-140.


Partial list of web pages containing this false claim:

http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-V1/1evlch07b.htm
http://www.creationapologetics.org/refuting/quotes.html
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ2.html#wp1303390
http://www.christianforums.com/t5593872&page=5

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

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

Posted in Commentary | Comments Off

Comments are closed.

    • Blogroll

      • AntiEvolution.org
      • Darwinian Conservatism
      • Evolving Thoughts
      • Hyphoid Logic
      • Rationally Speaking
      • Talk.Origins Archive
      • The Right Wing Professor
      • Wild Turkeys Forum
    • Contributors

      • Darwin Central
    • Navigation

      • DMCA contact information and infringement notifications
      • New Comments (Atom)
      • New Comments (RSS)
      • New Entries (Atom)
      • New Entries (RSS)
      • Visit the Darwin Central Forums!
    • Meta

      • Register
      • Log in
      • Entries RSS
      • Comments RSS
      • WordPress.org
    • Categories

      • Best of DC
      • Commentary
      • Creationism
      • Humor
      • News
      • Politics
      • PotW
      • Reviews
      • Science
Wordpress Theme designed by KomiradDarwin Central © 2012