radiocarbon?

Sep 2006
168
#1
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conte...000001/art00045;jsessionid=f7iskw5nn6tm.alice

“The largest volcanic crater on Easter Island in the South Pacific contains a lake 1 km in diameter with large floating mats of vegetation, mainly Scirpus californicus . A core taken through a mat near the center produced anomalous dates, with older dates above younger ones. The possibility that the mat had become inverted was considered, but palynological evidence refutes this idea because it shows a progressive upward decline of forest pollen, which is well known from other swamp cores on the island. A new series of radiocarbon dates made directly on pollen concentrates was obtained. These dates also produced inconsistencies, particularly when pollen concentrate ages were compared with 14C ages on plant fragments from the same depth. This series of 14C ages seems to indicate that both old and young organic components in the sediment are deposited contiguously and that the depositional history of these cores is more complex than previously known. Previous age determinations on bulk sediments from Easter Island, which also show anomalous dates, may be too simplistic. This paper provides a warning to other researchers dating sediments from Easter Island. We suggest that sample selection and dating procedures be carefully considered for these sediments.”

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/Abstracts41-2.htm

“The simplest explanation for radiocarbon presence in coal is that it was there when the coal formed. Radiocarbon dates of coal are typically 40,000 years, which obviously conflict with typical carboniferous coal geological ages of 300 million years. The viability of various evolutionary motivated explanations for the anomalous radiocarbon ages are considered, and the effects are demonstrated to be several orders of magnitude too small to account for the observed radiocarbon concentrations. The only reasonable explanation is the radiocarbon was incorporated at the time of formation, the geological ages are fictitious and the methodology of the 170 year-old Lyellian geological column is flawed.”

See also:
http://www.shroud.it/VHAELST5.PDF#s...oneous OR anomalous OR anomaly "radiocarbon""


Why bother to trust radiocarbon at all?
 

Similar History Discussions