|
|
Dating dilemma deepens: Moore on ancient radiocarbonFeedback 26 June 2000 A vociferous anti-creationist, Jim Moore, sent us the following email in June 2000 (starting ‘JM:’). He asked us to publish it in our feedback section under his full name, including the letter in reply from a Geochron official, (headed ‘DR:’). Both contained careless accusations against the integrity of a leading creationist geologist without even bothering to read the article carefully, and a serious ethical breach against customer confidentiality by a Geochron representative. So we felt a timely response (starting ‘TW:’) by Dr Tas Walker, staff geologist from Creation Ministries International (Australia) would be appropriate.
TW: Our primary aim was to establish whether the wood contained 14C. Evolutionists believe the wood is some 225 million years old and don’t expect any. All detectable 14C would be gone in something like 50,000 years. On the other hand, creationists believe the wood was buried during Noah’s Flood some 4500 years ago and expect it will still contain 14C. Geochron found there was 14C in the sample as creationists expected. We are not surprised that some people do not like this result.
TW: We consider that by providing this information, the lab has probably violated its fiduciary duty to CMI, its customer. It has a duty to maintain confidentiality with respect to customers and projects and any inquiries or disclosures should have been handled through, and authorised by CMI, not the lab or one of its employees. At the very least, the lab should have obtained CMI’s consent before releasing any information. One must wonder whether other clients can now trust Geochron not to reveal confidential information to their competitors. Not withstanding, if JM wanted the ‘inside story’ why did he contact Dick Reesman? Dick Reesman does not manage Geochron’s 14C lab, nor was he involved in analysing the wood sample. He manages their K-Ar lab! On the technical issue, JM should know that the original material is not always replaced in fossils. It is not uncommon for original material to be preserved or more frequently for the porous spaces to be impregnated (known as permineralization).
TW: If Dick Reesman would read the paper properly he would see that the issues he raises are all dealt with. The uncertainty he refers to (out of context) is only whether or not there was any of the original organic material left. Geochron’s analysis established that some of the original carbon was still present in the sample. It was clear from the morphology that it was fossilised wood (see photo in article).
TW: Dick Reesman’s ‘Let’s see if I understand this’, shows that he did not know anything about the sample. To provide a reliable response he should have checked Geochron’s files rather than parodying what he was told by JM. So much for the ‘inside story’.
TW: The paper does not say it was the original wood, but that it was fossilised wood. Surely Dick Reesman knows that the amount of original material preserved in fossils varies. For example, some dinosaur fossils (supposedly at least 65 million years old) still contain original bone material and even more surprisingly, some appear to still contain red blood cells and hemoglobin—see ‘Sue’ the T. rex including the original secular science journals cited therein [see also the later discovery of blood vessels]. And, if Dick Reesman were a real skeptic, he would be willing to question the supposed 225 million years age tag. Like many Skeptics, he is obviously very selective about what he is skeptical about! That’s why we should be Be sceptical of the Skeptics! It’s very similar to Lewontin’s admission regarding the materialistic bias applied in much scientific reasoning today about origins—even before examining the evidence.
TW: Only a small part of the sample was sent to Geochron and it may not be possible to conclude from their sample that it was wood. Most of the fossil is still embedded in the piece of sandstone (see photo in article) and it is easier to identify it from the larger sample. The identification of the wood was discussed in the article.
TW: These objections were anticipated. The possibility of contamination was discussed with the lab staff and their conclusions are presented in the article. The d13CPDB measurements by Geochron are consistent with the carbon representing organic carbon from the original wood and not from contamination. Furthermore the quarry from where the sandstone was obtained is well above the water table, and in evolutionary thinking has been that way for millions of years. So the idea of circulating groundwater does not wash.
TW: Of course evolutionists would not think it worth analysing for 14C in Triassic material because they believe it is millions of years old. This demonstrates how a person’s worldview affects their science. Creationists expected to find 14C, and as real scientists, tested their prediction, and, presto, 14C was present.
TW: When Dick Reesman or Jim actually find such an elusive creature as a ‘neutral and unbiased’ observer, I hope they preserve him/her for posterity (cf. Matthew 12:30).
TW: This report of 14C in fossilised wood is not an isolated case. There are a number of other examples where we have confirmed that 14C is present in wood that is supposedly millions of years old. For example:
They are widely accessible so JM and Dick Reesman really have no excuse for implying that it’s an isolated occurrence. It doesn’t seem like Dick Reesman is aware that Geochron did these 14C analyses for us too. But we appreciate his offer and will be very happy to negotiate a suitable arrangement, hopefully in the near future. Furthermore, it is not just creationist researchers who have found 14C in material supposed to be millions of years old according to the currently fashionable dating system. For example, samples of coal almost invariably have measurable 14C [Lowe, D.C., Problems associated with the use of coal as a source of 14C-free background material, Radiocarbon 31:117–120, 1989]. Note that the coal samples were analyzed to find a source devoid of 14C to use as a blank in the processing of samples for 14C dating—evolutionary scientists would not normally bother trying to measure 14C in stuff they think is millions of years old. That is probably the reason there are not many hundreds of reports of 14C in supposedly ancient fossils.
TW: Yes it was a small sample, but obviously more than adequate for Geochron to do the 14C testing. The rest of the sample is in CMI’s Australian office. It may be possible to obtain more samples from the quarry in Australia. Although the sample was mostly noncombustible, probably due to the amount of permineralization, it obviously contained enough carbon to give a meaningful analysis. Note that the sample belongs to Creation Ministries International not to Dr Snelling, because he did the work as an employee of CMI. We would expect Geochron to treat their clients in a professional and ethical manner and not pass clients’ samples to a third party without permission. CMI would be prepared (indeed we would be very pleased) to consider a proposal to explore this issue further. We would consider allowing more of the sample to be submitted to an agreed expert for identification, provided the procedures were agreed beforehand and, by advance agreement, the results properly reported and made fully available to CMI, including for publication if desired. We would also require the opportunity of observing any tests that were conducted.
TW: Just possibly, Dick Reesman, the radiocarbon date is much closer to the truth than the 225–230 million year ‘age’. Your bias seems to prevent you from accepting the clear evidence against the standard geologic time scale. You would rather doubt the accuracy of your own lab’s analysis than question the status quo. It just underlines the point we make that philosophical bias plays a big role in how we all look at the data in historical science (where you cannot directly observe the past). The results do present a problem to the millions-of-years philosophy. That was the point of the project. It seems like the idea of a ‘young world’ as described in the Bible, is too radical for many people to face. The Apostle Peter prophesied about such ‘scoffers’ who would deny a recent Creation and global Flood so they could laugh at the idea of a coming judgment where everyone would have to give an account before their Maker (2 Peter 3:3-7, cf. Jesus Himself affirming the fact of the Flood, Ark and coming judgment in Luke 17:26-27).
Sincerely, |