Coal from Russia from the "Pennsylvanian," supposedly 300 million years old, was dated at 1,680 years. (Radiocarbon, vol. 8, 1966).I am gradually tracking down the many phoney claims made pertaining to the radiocarbon dating process, but because I have to work for a living and don't have unlimited access to a major library it takes time. But, I have tracked this one down. It appears in a lot of places in creationist literature, not just in the one you cited. For example, it's at TrueOrigin.org as well.
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, No. 1, pp. 292-323.
Another creationist claim shot down in flames. Yet you continue to trust those creationist websites!
Yes, please do track down one or two obscure points and pretend the following statement “By this time tens of thousands of C14 dates have been published from tests performed by various laboratories around the world. In the annual volumes in which the dates are published, concerns have been expressed about many relatively young dates that violate established geological age notions” doesn’t exist as fact.
And pretend one APPARENT mistake renders the other facts listed on the site invalid- it’s funny to watch evos jump on a few mistakes as their only defenses against other true facts. When evos make mistakes- all sorts of excuses are made- when evos hide the truth and print half truths that are easily refutted- no explanations are given- Yet when a Creo makes a mistake- why then He’s automatically dismissed entirely-
By the way- that site trueorigins you listed refutes TONS of mistakes, half-truths and flat out lies perpetrated by your beloved talkorigins site- But I’m sure you excuse all manner of sloppy and false articles on talkorigins while puffing out your chest and pretending that site is ‘real science’ while any creo site with a mistake or two is to be dismissed entirely- it’s really quite laughable- but hurry along- therem ight be another mistake or two on the link I gave which will serve to brush the fact thaT “In the annual volumes in which the dates are published, concerns have been expressed about many relatively young dates that violate established geological age notions” under the carpet.