Creationist Attempts to Disprove Radioactive Dating: Triassic Coal and Mt St Helens Lava

Radioactive dating is a powerful tool that scientists use to determine the age of rocks, fossils, and other geological materials. It relies on the fact that certain elements in these materials decay at a fixed rate over time, allowing researchers to calculate how long ago they were formed. However, some creationists have attempted to discredit the accuracy of radioactive dating by performing stunts where they get labs to date Triassic coal with C14 and recent Mt. St. Helens lava with K-Ar. In this article we will examine these claims and evaluate their validity.

Triassic coal and C14 dating

One of the most common creationist stunts is the attempt to date Triassic coal with C14. This is a particularly puzzling endeavor because C14 dating is reliable only for materials less than 50,000 years old, whereas coal is millions of years old. Creationists argue that the presence of C14 in the coal is evidence that it is much younger than mainstream science suggests, and that this invalidates the use of radioactive dating techniques.
However, the presence of C14 in coal can be explained by the fact that coal is often formed from organic material that has been buried and compressed over millions of years. This organic material may contain C14, which then becomes trapped in the coal. In addition, contamination can occur during sampling or laboratory analysis, which can lead to false C14 readings. Therefore, the presence of C14 in Triassic coal is not evidence that the coal is young, but rather a result of the complex processes that led to its formation and the potential for contamination during analysis.

Mt. St. Helens lava and K-Ar dating

Another creationist gimmick is to try to date the recent lava flows from Mount St. Helens using K-Ar dating. K-Ar dating is a method used to date rocks that are millions or billions of years old, and is not suitable for materials less than a few hundred thousand years old. Creationists argue that K-Ar dating produced an age that was much younger than the actual age of the lava, and that this is evidence that radioactive dating is unreliable.
However, the K-Ar dating of the lava from Mt. St. Helens was not performed on the lava itself, but on minerals contained in the lava. These minerals were formed before the eruption and were incorporated into the lava as it flowed out of the volcano. K-Ar dating of these minerals gave an age of about 0.35 million years, which is consistent with the known age of rocks in the area. Therefore, the creationist claim that the K-Ar dating of the Mt. St. Helens lava is invalid is not supported by the evidence.

The importance of scientific rigor

The creationist stunts mentioned above are examples of attempts to discredit scientific methods and conclusions without proper consideration of the nuances and complexities involved. Scientific research and experimentation require rigorous protocols and careful consideration of potential sources of error and bias. The use of radioactive dating techniques has been thoroughly tested and validated over many years and is widely accepted as a reliable method for determining the age of materials.
While it is important to maintain a critical eye toward scientific claims and methods, it is equally important to approach these critiques with a thorough understanding of the underlying science. Claims based on misunderstandings or misrepresentations of scientific concepts can have damaging effects on public perceptions and policy decisions. It is therefore vital that scientists and science communicators continue to engage with the public and address misconceptions in a clear and accessible manner.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the creationist stunts involving attempts to date Triassic coal with C14 and recent Mt. St. Helens lava with K-Ar are not valid criticisms of radioactive dating techniques. The presence of C14 in the coal can be explained by the complex processes of coal formation and possible contamination, while the K-Ar dating of the Mt. St. Helens lava is consistent with the known age of rocks in the area. It is important to approach scientific claims and critiques with a thorough understanding of the underlying science and a commitment to rigorous experimentation and analysis.

FAQs

1. What is radioactive dating, and how does it work?

Radioactive dating is a method used by scientists to determine the age of rocks, fossils, and other geological materials. It relies on the fact that certain elements in these materials decay at a fixed rate over time, which allows researchers to calculate how long ago they were formed. Different radioactive isotopes have different half-lives, which is the amount of time it takes for half the atoms in a sample to decay. By measuring the relative amounts of the parent and daughter isotopes in a sample, scientists can calculate its age.

2. What is Triassic coal, and why is it important to creationist stunts?

Triassic coal is a type of coal that was formed during the Triassic period, which occurred between 251 and 199 million years ago. Creationists use Triassic coal to perform stunts where they attempt to date it using carbon-14 dating, which is only reliable for materials that are less than 50,000 years old. The presence of carbon-14 in the coal is used as evidence to support the belief that it is much younger than mainstream science suggests.

3. What are some potential sources of error in carbon-14 dating, and how are they addressed?

Potential sources of error in carbon-14 dating include contamination from modern carbon, incomplete removal of contaminantsduring sample preparation, and fluctuations in atmospheric carbon-14 levels over time. These sources of error are addressed through rigorous testing and calibration of the carbon-14 dating method, as well as careful selection and preparation of samples. Scientists also use multiple dating methods in combination to cross-check and verify their results.

4. What is K-Ar dating, and why is it important to creationist stunts?

K-Ar dating is a method used by scientists to date rocks that are millions or billions of years old. It relies on the fact that certain isotopes of potassium decay into argon at a fixed rate over time. By measuring the relative amounts of potassium and argon in a sample, scientists can calculate its age. Creationists use K-Ar dating to perform stunts where they attempt to date recent lava flows from Mt St Helens, which is not suitable for K-Ar dating because it is less than a few hundred thousand years old.

5. Why is the K-Ar dating of recent Mt St Helens lava not a valid criticism of radioactive dating techniques?

The K-Ar dating of recent Mt St Helens lava is not a valid criticism of radioactive dating techniques because the dating was not performed on the lava itself, but on minerals that were contained within the lava. These minerals had been formed before the eruption and had been incorporated into the lava as it flowed out of the volcano. The K-Ar dating of these minerals produced an age that was consistent with the known age of the rocks in the area, which is about 0.35 million years old. Therefore, the creationist claim that the K-Ar dating of the Mt St Helens lava is invalid is not supported by the evidence.

6. What is the importance of scientific rigor in evaluating claims about radioactive dating?

Scientific rigor is essential in evaluating claims about radioactive dating because it requires careful consideration of potential sources of error and bias. Radioactive dating techniques have been thoroughly tested and validated over many years, and are widely accepted as reliable methods for determining the age of materials. It is important to approach scientific claims and critiques with a thorough understanding of the underlying science and a commitment to rigorous experimentation and analysis.

7. What are the potential consequences of creationist stunts that attempt to discredit radioactive dating techniques?

Potential consequences of creationist stunts that attempt to discredit radioactive dating techniques include the spread of misinformation and the undermining of public confidence in the scientific method. Claims that rely on misunderstandings or misrepresentations of scientific concepts can have damaging effects on public perception and policy decisions. Therefore, it is crucial that scientists and science communicators continue to engage with the public and address misconceptions in a clear and accessible way.