[_ Old Earth _] For ID'rs it doesn get much worse

[Charlie Hatchett]

I meant the good words Art.

I've come to the conclusion that for good exploratory science, it's necessary to

have opposing views...sharpening blades against one another.

Peace

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Unless this new technique is time travel, it's still just theory.

In reality it's a hypothesis that is lacking

observation and repeatability. That doesn't mean that over time their case will

be not be strengthened. But to use this example as indisputable proof against

the hypothesis of Irreducible Complexity is going out on a limb.

I disagree, the idea of Irreducible Complexity is not a viable one when the fullness of the Theory of Natural Selection is taken into account. This simply bolsters against such claims.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

I disagree, the idea of Irreducible Complexity is not a viable one when the fullness of the Theory of Natural Selection is taken into account. This simply bolsters against such claims.

Could you explain your hypothesis a bit?

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

I disagree, the idea of Irreducible Complexity is not a viable one when the fullness of the Theory of Natural Selection is taken into account. This simply bolsters against such claims.

Could you explain your hypothesis a bit?

It's not a hypothesis, it's a claim. Evolution, as explained by the Theory of Natural Selection does not encounter the problem of irreducible complexity. The complexity of life as we see it today reduces to genetics which over time we can show become more varied and more complex. The fact that the variety of life that exists today has come about a scant few tens of millions of years after the KT event is very good evidence of this. The idea that it took several billion years to reach multicellular life allows for plenty of time for that complexity to come about.

Now, hold on, don't just give me some pat reply about radiometric dating, assume that time for a second and think about it. The answer is plain. It's believeable that the amount of complexity we see today could have arisen from 4.1 billion years of genetic jiggery pokery. Life grows and expands exponentially the complexity of life grows with it.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

It's not a hypothesis, it's a claim. Evolution, as explained by the Theory of Natural Selection does not encounter the problem of irreducible complexity. The complexity of life as we see it today reduces to genetics which over time we can show become more varied and more complex. The fact that the variety of life that exists today has come about a scant few tens of millions of years after the KT event is very good evidence of this. The idea that it took several billion years to reach multicellular life allows for plenty of time for that complexity to come about.

Now, hold on, don't just give me some pat reply about radiometric dating, assume that time for a second and think about it. The answer is plain. It's believeable that the amount of complexity we see today could have arisen from 4.1 billion years of genetic jiggery pokery. Life grows and expands exponentially the complexity of life grows with it.

Ever wonder why there is a KT event apparent worldwide? It speaks of a

worldwide catastrophe, with many of the victims frozen in time.

As for organisms increasing in complexity: I've never seen any convincing

evidence that this occurs, though many hypothesize that it occurs.

All known living animals show up in the fossil record fully formed.


For example, humans and the hypothesized monkeys and apes leading up

to humans show up contemporaneously and fully formed in the fossil

record:

Ardipithecus ramidus

Australopithecus afarensis

Australopithecus robustus

Paranthropus boisei

Austrolopithecus africanus

Homo habilis

Homo erectus

Homo neanderthalensis

Homo sapien

Evidence that seems in itself sufficient to completely invalidate an Australopithecus - Homo habilis - Homo erectus - Homo sapiens evolutionary line was uncovered by Louis Leakey himself. Leakey has reported that he found the remains of a juvenile Homo habilis in Bed I at Olduvai Gorge at a lower level than he had found an australopithecine in the same bed. Furthermore, Leakey has found evidence of both Australopithecus and Homo habilis above Bed I in Bed II, contemporary with Homo erectus.8,9 This would establish the contemporaneous existence in the same area of Africa of Australopithecus, Homo habilis, and Homo erectus, hardly conducive to the idea that Australopithecus had evolved into H. habilis, which had then evolved into H. erectus.

Even more astounding (to evolutionists) was Leakey's report that he had found the remains of what appeared to be a circular stone habitation hut right at the bottom of Bed I!9,10 It has long been held that deliberate manufacture of shelters could have been performed only by modern Man. This evidence clearly indicates then that Australopithecus (and the so-called H. habilis), H. erectus, and modern Man were contemporary inhabitants of the same area.

8 M.D. Leakey, Olduvai Gorge, Vol. 3, Cambridge U. Press, 1971, p. 272.

9 A.J. Kelso, Physical Anthropology, 1st Edition, J.B. Lippincott Co., New York, 1970, p. 221.

10 M.D. Leakey, op cit., p. 23-24.

 

[Quadeshet]

http://lifesci.rutgers.edu/~heylab/scon ... neous.html

How does the existence of contemporaneous populations make the evolution of species invalid?

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

How does the existence of contemporaneous populations make the evolution of species invalid?

Because they supposedly evolved chronologically (in the case above).

 

[ArtGuy]

It has long been held that deliberate manufacture of shelters could have been performed only by modern Man.

Or birds. Or ants. Or spiders.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Ever wonder why there is a KT event apparent worldwide? It speaks of a
worldwide catastrophe, with many of the victims frozen in time.
As for organisms increasing in complexity: I've never seen any convincing
evidence that this occurs, though many hypothesize that it occurs.
All known living animals show up in the fossil record fully formed.

Yes, a worldwide castrophe, it involved a comet hitting what is now the Yucatan Peninsula and causing a worldwide firestorm, killing nearly all surface life save for small animals capable of hiding underground or in some other protection. We see in the KT boundary the iridium from the comet and the soot layer from the cloud of burning forests.

Ok, well a fossilized creature cannot undergo changes for two reasons:
1: It is dead and it's been placed in sediment.
2: Individual animals do not undergo evolution, this is an all too common misconception in the creationist community.

Now your other point, all the living animals in the fossil record appear as they do because they were fossilized in a recent enough time span for that creature to have the same bone structures. The fact that species do not go through major changes very quickly in a normal setting accounts for this.
We do however see their ancestor species, as well as our own. The fact that they don't get as much press is a matter of priority and for some reason humans prioritize their own geneology.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Or birds. Or ants. Or spiders.

Good point.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Yes, a worldwide castrophe, it involved a comet hitting what is now the Yucatan Peninsula and causing a worldwide firestorm, killing nearly all surface life save for small animals capable of hiding underground or in some other protection. We see in the KT boundary the iridium from the comet and the soot layer from the cloud of burning forests.

Wonder if this comet may have caused the flood that our ancestors passed

down through oral tradition, until it was reduced to writing? Certainly, if it hit

close to water, it would have caused some massive tidal waves (of course, I

don't know about 6 miles high-maybe?). The fossil record definitely has

preserved something very castastrophic at the K/T boundry, regardless of

the hypothesis one holds concerning the details.

I find the parallels fascinating: A remnant repopulating the world and

massive destruction and death on a worldwide basis.

Could a comet strike alter radiometric clocks?

:-?

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Yes, a worldwide castrophe, it involved a comet hitting what is now the Yucatan Peninsula and causing a worldwide firestorm, killing nearly all surface life save for small animals capable of hiding underground or in some other protection. We see in the KT boundary the iridium from the comet and the soot layer from the cloud of burning forests.

Wonder if this comet may have caused the flood that our ancestors passed

down through oral tradition, until it was reduced to writing? Certainly, if it hit

close to water, it would have caused some massive tidal waves (of course, I

don't know about 6 miles high-maybe?). The fossil record definitely has

preserved something very castastrophic at the K/T boundry, regardless of

the hypothesis one holds concerning the details.

I find the parallels fascinating: A remnant repopulating the world and

massive destruction and death on a worldwide basis.

Could a comet strike alter radiometric clocks?

:-?

Two problems with that:
1: No humans existed then.
2: It didn't cause a flood, unless by flood you mean massive firestorms generating enough smoke and dust to block out the sun for decades and cause the climate to go into super greenhouse mode for a few million years.

A comet could reset radioisotopes, but in order to do so it would have to melt the entire earth, which would destroy any remnants of life on earth.
As the K/T boundary exists as well as the Yucatan crater and you know, life on the planet, this is obviously not what took place.

Stop trying to get science to conform to your religion's creation myths, it won't work. If your belief doesn't conform with established reality, the solution is not to attempt to get reality to resemble your beliefs but to change your beliefs.

 

[Quadeshet]

How does the existence of contemporaneous populations make the evolution of species invalid?

Because they supposedly evolved chronologically (in the case above).

That's an oversimplified evolutionary model.

The research of Hey (in that link I posted) suggests that 'species' do not necessarily exist as distinct entities. The sharing of genetic information consists of multiple levels with the lowest being the greatest amount of gene flow and the highest having the greatest amount of genetic drift. Genetic drift defines the boundary of a genetic species, however the ancestors of a genetic species may not have been a 'species' in that they were not a distinct entity.

In the fossil record, it has been the trend assign the concept of 'biological species' i.e a temporally bounded group of creatures that could reproduce. This is somewhat arbitrary, as it seems from Hey's research that a group of organisms that could be mistakenly called a 'species' could rather be a population with a varying amount of gene flow.

This is why it makes sense that the genera we call 'Australopithecus' and 'Homo' used to consist of many individuals with varying phenotypes but not necessarily of distinct genetic species, hence there being able to exist multiple populations which may have been improperly designated as 'biological' species.

The end result is that there is now a genetic species called Homo sapiens who display the traits expected by a marked amount of genetic drift.

I am sorry if this is to horribly off topic, I just love this stuff.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Two problems with that:
1: No humans existed then.
2: It didn't cause a flood, unless by flood you mean massive firestorms generating enough smoke and dust to block out the sun for decades and cause the climate to go into super greenhouse mode for a few million years.

A comet could reset radioisotopes, but in order to do so it would have to melt the entire earth, which would destroy any remnants of life on earth.
As the K/T boundary exists as well as the Yucatan crater and you know, life on the planet, this is obviously not what took place.

Stop trying to get science to conform to your religion's creation myths, it won't work. If your belief doesn't conform with established reality, the solution is not to attempt to get reality to resemble your beliefs but to change your beliefs.

Problem is, you can't reconcile a firestorm only with massive preservation of

whole carcasses (including Dinosaur soft tissue that exists until present).

The K/T boundary speaks clearly of a worldwide flood, rapid sedimentation,

and rapid burial. I'm not saying that a comet didn't occur also, but there's

no doubt about worldwide inundation. An ice comet would be a good source

of H2O.

Stop trying to get science to conform to your religion's creation myths, it won't work. If your belief doesn't conform with established reality, the solution is not to attempt to get reality to resemble your beliefs but to change your beliefs.

Might be time to look in the mirror.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

That's an oversimplified evolutionary model.

The research of Hey (in that link I posted) suggests that 'species' do not necessarily exist as distinct entities. The sharing of genetic information consists of multiple levels with the lowest being the greatest amount of gene flow and the highest having the greatest amount of genetic drift. Genetic drift defines the boundary of a genetic species, however the ancestors of a genetic species may not have been a 'species' in that they were not a distinct entity.

In the fossil record, it has been the trend assign the concept of 'biological species' i.e a temporally bounded group of creatures that could reproduce. This is somewhat arbitrary, as it seems from Hey's research that a group of organisms that could be mistakenly called a 'species' could rather be a population with a varying amount of gene flow.

This is why it makes sense that the genera we call 'Australopithecus' and 'Homo' used to consist of many individuals with varying phenotypes but not necessarily of distinct genetic species, hence there being able to exist multiple populations which may have been improperly designated as 'biological' species.

The end result is that there is now a genetic species called Homo sapiens who display the traits expected by a marked amount of genetic drift.

I am sorry if this is to horribly off topic, I just love this stuff.

Right. I really enjoy exploring these topics also. :D

In the scenario depicted above, I have to agree that different "races" were

expressed over time due to Natural Selection (which is also congruent with

ID) and the variability built into human genes for survival. It's the cross over

from Australopithecus to Homo that I doubt. There will have to be more

fossils found and thus a smoother transistion between Australopithecus and

Homo before I can accept this hypothesis.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Problem is, you can't reconcile a firestorm only with massive preservation of
whole carcasses (including Dinosaur soft tissue that exists until present).
The K/T boundary speaks clearly of a worldwide flood, rapid sedimentation,
and rapid burial. I'm not saying that a comet didn't occur also, but there's
no doubt about worldwide inundation. An ice comet would be a good source of H20

Ok, you're making an incredibly bad mistake: All dinosaur fossils were NOT formed at the same time, it is clear from the geological record that they formed over several hundred million years in several different rock strata. The K/T event killed the dinosaurs, it didn't bury them. Infact you would have to show that all dinosaur fossils are in a layer of sediment that is fairly uniform accross the entire planet earth, which they are not, for what you are saying to be correct.

Do you know what the K/T boundary is? It is a layer of sooty deposits with a think layer of iridium at concentrations not naturally found on Earth's surface. The only plentiful sources of iridium we have access to are extraterrestrial debris.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Ok, you're making an incredibly bad mistake: All dinosaur fossils were NOT formed at the same time, it is clear from the geological record that they formed over several hundred million years in several different rock strata. The K/T event killed the dinosaurs, it didn't bury them. Infact you would have to show that all dinosaur fossils are in a layer of sediment that is fairly uniform accross the entire planet earth, which they are not, for what you are saying to be correct.

Do you know what the K/T boundary is? It is a layer of sooty deposits with a think layer of iridium at concentrations not naturally found on Earth's surface. The only plentiful sources of iridium we have access to are extraterrestrial debris.

All dinosaur fossils were NOT formed at the same time, it is clear from the geological record that they formed over several hundred million years in several different rock strata.

I disagree:

Fossil development necessitates quick depositional processes..

Lack of worldwide uncomformities in the geologic "sequence" necessitates

that the whole sedimentary column (Paleozoic on up) was

deposited in a very short period of time. There's no room for long ages.

Similarly, an obvious indicator of catastrophism is the existence of fossils in the sedimentary rocks. The depositional processes must have been rapid, or fossils could not have been preserved in them.

"To become fossilized, a plant or animal must usually have hard parts, such as bone, shell, or wood. It must be buried quickly to prevent decay and must be undisturbed throughout the long process."5

The importance of this fact is obvious when one realizes that the identification of the geologic "age" of any given sedimentary rock depends solely upon the assemblage of fossils which it contains. The age does not depend on radiometric dating, as is obvious from the fact that the geologic age system had been completely worked out and most major formations dated before radioactivity was even discovered. Neither does the age depend upon the mineralogic or petrologic character of a rock, as is obvious from the fact that rocks of all types of composition, structure, and degree of hardness can be found in any "age". It does not depend upon vertical position in the local geologic strata, since rocks of any "age" may and do rest horizontally and conformably on rocks of any other age. No, a rock is dated solely by its fossils.

"The only chronometric scale applicable in geologic history for the stratigraphic classification of rocks and for dating geologic events exactly is furnished by the fossils. Owing to the irreversibility of evolution, they offer an unambiguous time-scale for relative age determinations and for world-wide correlation of rocks."6

Thus, the existence and identification of distinctive geologic ages is based on fossils in the sedimentary rocks. On the other hand, the very existence of fossils in sedimentary rocks is prima facie evidence that each such fossiliferous rock was formed by aqueous catastrophism. The one question, therefore, is whether the rocks were formed by a great multiplicity of local catastrophes scattered through many ages, or by a great complex of local catastrophes all conjoined contemporaneously in one single age, terminated by the cataclysm.

The latter is the most likely. Each distinctive stratum was laid down quickly, since it obviously represents a uniform set of water flow conditions, and such uniformity never persists very long. Each set of strata in a given formation must also have been deposited in rapid succession, or there would be evidence of unconformityâ€â€that is, periods of uplift and erosionâ€â€at the various interfaces.

Where unconformity does exist, say at the top of a formation, there may well have been an interval of uplift or tilting, at that location. followed by either sub-aerial or sub-marine erosion for a time. However, since such formations invariably grade laterally into other formations (no unconformity, is worldwide), sooner or later one will come to a location where there is a conformable relationship between this formation and the one above it. Thus, each formation is succeeded somewhere by another one which was deposited rapidly after the first one ... and so on throughout the entire geologic column.

Thus, there is no room anywhere for long ages. Each formation must have been produced rapidly, as evidenced by both its fossils and its depositional characteristics, and each formation must have been followed rapidly by another one, which was also formed rapidly! The whole sequence, therefore, must have been formed rapidly, exactly as the Flood model postulates.

But, then. what about the geologic ages? Remember that the only means of identifying these ages is by fossils and fossils speak of rapid formation. Even assuming a very slow formation of these beds, however, how can fossils tell the age of a rock?

Obviously, fossils could be distinctive time markers only if the various kinds each had lived in different ages. But how can we know which fossils lived in which ages? No scientists were there to observe them, and true science requires observation. Furthermore, by analogy with the present (and uniformitarianism is supposed to be able to decipher the past in terms of the present), many different kinds of plants and animals are living in the present world, including even the "primitive" one-celled organisms with which evolution is supposed to have begun. Why, therefore, isn’t it better to assume that all major kinds also lived together in past ages as well? Some kinds, such as the dinosaurs, have become extinct, but practically all present-day kinds of organisms are also found in the fossil world.

The only reason for thinking that different fossils should represent different ages is the assumption of evolution. If evolution is really true, then of course fossils should provide an excellent means for identifying the various ages, an "unambiguous time-scale," as Schindewolf put it. Hedberg says:

"Fossils have furnished, through their record of the evolution of life on this planet, an amazingly effective key to the relative positioning of strata in widely-separated regions."7

The use of fossils as time-markers thus depends completely on "their record of evolution." But, then, how do we know that evolution is true? Why, because of the fossil record!

"Fossils provide the only historical, documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more and more complex forms."8

So the only proof of evolution is based on the assumption of evolution! The system of evolution arranges the fossils, the fossils date the rocks, and the resulting system of fossil-dated rocks proves evolution. Around and around we go.


1. Stephen Jay Gould: "Is Uniformitarianism Necessary?" American Journal of Science, Vol. 263, (March 1965). p. 227.
2. Edgar B. Heylmun: "Should We Teach Uniformitarianism!", Journal of Geological Education, Vol. 19, January 1971, p. 35.
3. David Jorafsky: Soviet Marxism and Natural Science (New York, Columbia University Press, 1961), p. 12.
4. Henry M. Morris: The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth (San Diego, Institute for Creation Research, 1972) 114 pp. [Editor's note: Referenced book is out of print. "Genesis Record" book lists 100 reasons why the Flood must be understood as worldwide.
Henry M. Morris: The Genesis Record (San Diego, Institute for Creation Research, 1976) 716 pp. ]
5. F. H. T. Rhodes, H. S. Zim and P. R. Shaffer: Fossils (New York, Golden Press, 1962). p. 10.
6. O. H. Schindewolf, "Comments on Some Stratigraphic Terms", American Journal of Science, Vol. 255, June 1957, p. 394.
7. H. D. Hedberg: "The Stratigraphic Panorama", Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, Vol. 72, April 1961, pp. 499-518.
8. C. O. Dunbar: Historical Geology (New York, Wiley, 1960), p. 47.
9. See The Genesis Flood by John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris (Nutley, N. J., Presbyterian and Reformed, 1961), for a much more extensive treatment of the various topics discussed in this brief paper. Available also through the Institute for Creation Research.



Henry Morris, Ph.D.

Hydraulic Engineering

President, ICR (Died Recently...see separate post)

Do you know what the K/T boundary is? It is a layer of sooty deposits with a think layer of iridium at concentrations not naturally found on Earth's surface. The only plentiful sources of iridium we have access to are extraterrestrial debris.

Actually the K/T boundry is the top of the sedimentary geologic "column".

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Actually the K/T boundry is the top of the sedimentary geologic "column".

No, the K/T boundary is the dividing line between the Cretateous Period and the Tertiary period. K- for cretateous(C had already been taken) and T for Tertiary.

I disagree:
Fossil development necessitates quick depositional processes..

So?

Lack of worldwide uncomformities in the geologic "sequence" necessitates
that the whole sedimentary column (Paleozoic on up) was
deposited in a very short period of time. There's no room for long ages.

That is wrong for a number of reasons:
1: Plenty of unconformity.
2: That reason alone would not be enough evidence to suggest that THE ENTIRE GEOLOGIC COLUMN fell into place in the span of 40 days.

The importance of this fact is obvious when one realizes that the identification of the geologic "age" of any given sedimentary rock depends solely upon the assemblage of fossils which it contains. The age does not depend on radiometric dating, as is obvious from the fact that the geologic age system had been completely worked out and most major formations dated before radioactivity was even discovered.

Yes but it has been corroborated by radiometric dating which means that it is quite likely the case that "Strata" Smith's estimates using the fact that different fossils were in different rock layers accounts for large amounts of time.

The fact that you don't see allosaurs before 208 million years ago or after 144 million years ago in the geologic record is enough to show the error in your arguments. This means that the allosaur came about and died off in the time span of the layers in which it appears. Which speaks of very long stretches of time. The other dating methods confirm this to be true.

 

[Quadeshet]

Right. I really enjoy exploring these topics also. :D

In the scenario depicted above, I have to agree that different "races" were

expressed over time due to Natural Selection (which is also congruent with

ID) and the variability built into human genes for survival. It's the cross over

from Australopithecus to Homo that I doubt. There will have to be more

fossils found and thus a smoother transistion between Australopithecus and

Homo before I can accept this hypothesis.

What do you expect to see, though? What is 'smooth'?

The whole point of the genetic species vs. biological species is that there is not necessarily a linear development from one to the next, simply because some populations are not 'species' in a real sense.

Any two (or more) populations that we define mistakenly as species may have exchanged genetic information to become ancestors.

Thus, the division between australopithecines and the genus homo may not be 'real' because they were not necessarily distinct genetic species.

I would hazard a guess that before the worldwide spread of populations in the genus homo there were no distinct genetic species. Later, due to isolation, the genetic species of homo sapiens, homo neanderthalensis and asian homo erectus developed.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Actually the K/T boundary is the top of the sedimentary geologic "column".

No, the K/T boundary is the dividing line between the Cretateous Period and the Tertiary period. K- for cretateous(C had already been taken) and T for Tertiary.

Right, the top of the sedimentary column is the Cretateous (K). The Tertiary

(T) and Quaternary are erosional versus sedimentary strata.

That is wrong for a number of reasons:
1: Plenty of unconformity.
2: That reason alone would not be enough evidence to suggest that THE ENTIRE GEOLOGIC COLUMN fell into place in the span of 40 days.

1. There is no worldwide uncomformity...only local. Each strata

comformably lies upon the strata below it (except for local uncomformities).

2. This is evidence in favor of a catastrophic flood, but I agree, it's not

enough on it's own.

Yes but it has been corroborated by radiometric dating which means that it is quite likely the case that "Strata" Smith's estimates using the fact that different fossils were in different rock layers accounts for large amounts of time.

The fact that you don't see allosaurs before 208 million years ago or after 144 million years ago in the geologic record is enough to show the error in your arguments. This means that the allosaur came about and died off in the time span of the layers in which it appears. Which speaks of very long stretches of time. The other dating methods confirm this to be true.

These dating methods automatically rule out the possibility of the fossils

being young, because of their very high low end thresholds.

Rock formations are invariably dated by the fossils they contain.

For example, if human bones are found in coal mines (Pennsylvanian

Strata), the strata is written off as some uncomformity in the strata.


Interestingly, the AMS method improved the sensitivity of the raw

measurement of the C14/C12 ratio from approximately 1% of the modern

value to about 0.001%, extending the theoretical range of sensitivity from

about 40,000 years to about 90,000 years. The expectation was that this

improvement in precision would make it possible to use this technique to

date dramatically older fossil material. The big surprise, however, was that

no fossil material could be found anywhere that had as little as 0.001% of

the modern value. Since most of the scientists involved assumed the

standard geological time scale was correct, the obvious explanation for the

C14 they were detecting in their samples was contamination from some

source of modern carbon with its high level of C14. Therefore they mounted

a major campaign to discover and eliminate the sources of such

contamination. Although they identified and corrected a few relatively minor

sources of C14 contamination, there still remained a significant level of

C14â€â€typically about 100 times the ultimate sensitivity of the instrumentâ€â€in

samples that should have been utterly "C14-dead," including many from the

deeper levels of the fossil-bearing part of the geological record.

In view of the profound significance of these AMS C14 measurements, the

ICR Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) team has undertaken i

AMS C14 analyses of such fossil material. The first set of samples

consisted of ten coals obtained from the U. S. Department of Energy Coal

Sample Bank maintained at the Pennsylvania State University. The ten

samples include three coals from the Eocene part of the geological record,

three from the Cretaceous, and four from the Pennsylvanian. These

samples were analyzed by one of the foremost AMS laboratories in the

world. Figure 1 below shows in histogram form the results of these analyses.

These values fall squarely within the range already established in the

peer-reviewed radiocarbon literature. When we average our results over each

geological interval, we obtain remarkably similar values of 0.26 percent

modern carbon (pmc) for Eocene, 0.21 pmc for Cretaceous, and 0.27 pmc

for Pennsylvanian. Little difference in C14 level as a function of position in

the geological record. This is consistent with the young-earth view that the

entire macrofossil record up to the upper Cretaceous is the product of the

Genesis Flood and therefore such fossils should share a common C14 age.

Figure 1. Histogram representation of C14 analysis of coal samples.

It's amazing the drastic difference in results that occurs between one's

choice of dating method.

What do you make of the AMS C14 dating method's failure to discover C14

"dead" fossil samples?