M. L. Keith and
G. M. Anderson, Department of Geochemistry and Mineralogy, Pennsylvania
State University, USA, 'Radiocarbon dating: fictitious
results with mollusk shells',.Science,
vol. 141, 16 August 1963, pp. 634,635.."The
most noteworthy feature of the results is that the analyzed modern mollusk
shells from river environments are not only deficient in C13, relative
to marine shells, as noted by Keith 'et
al'.(reference
#16.{in the article}),
but are also extremely deficient in C14,
relative to modern wood and give uncorrected radiocarbon ages in the range
1010 to 2300 years."
o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
Robert E. Lee, 'Radiocarbon:
ages in error',.Anthropological
Journal of Canada, vol. 19 (3), 1981, pp. 9-29. Reprinted in the.Creation
Research Society Quarterly, vol. 19, 2, September 1982, pp. 117-127,
quotes from pp. 123 and 125.."In
the light of what is known about the
radiocarbon method and the way it is used, it is truly astonishing
that many authors will cite
agreeable determinations as 'proof' for their beliefs.
"Radiocarbon
dating has somehow avoided collapse onto its own battered foundation and
now lurches onward with
feigned
consistency. The implications
of pervasive
contamination and ancient variations in carbon-14 levels are steadfastly
ignored by those who base their argument upon the dates. The early authorities
began the
charade
by stressing that they were 'not aware of a single significant disagreement'
on any sample that had been dated at different labs.(reference
numbers 86,87.{in
the full article})..Such
enthusiasts continue to claim, incredible though it may seem, that 'no
gross.discrepancies
are apparent'.(88,89)..Surely
15,000 years of difference on a single block of soil is indeed a 'gross'
discrepancy! And how could the excessive disagreement between the labs
be called insignificant, when it has been the basis for the reappraisal
of the standard error associated with each and every date in existence?
"Why
do geologists and archaeologists still spend their scarce money on costly
radiocarbon determinations? They do so because occasional dates 'appear'
to be useful. While the method cannot be counted on to give good, unequivocal
results, the numbers do impress people and save them the trouble of thinking
excessively. Expressed in what 'look' like precise calendar years, figures
'seem' somehow better—both to layman and professional not versed in statistics—than
complex stratigraphic
or cultural correlations and are more easily retained in one's memory.
'Absolute' dates determined by a laboratory carry a lot of weight and are
extremely helpful in bolstering weak arguments.....No matter how 'useful'
it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding
accurate and reliable results. There 'are' gross discrepancies, the chronology
is 'uneven' and 'relative' and the accepted dates are actually 'selected'
dates.
"This whole
blessed thing is nothing but 13th century alchemy
and it all depends upon which funny paper you read.(91)."
o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
Richard L. Mauger, Ph.D.
(geology), Associate Professor of Geology, East Carolina University, USA,
article, 'K-Ar ages of biotites.(dark
brownish to black mica {aluminum silicate minerals, common in igneous
and metamorphic
rocks, characteristically
splitting into flexible sheets used in insulation and electrical equipment}).from
tuffs.(a
rock composed of compacted volcanic ash varying in size from fine sand
to coarse gravel).in
Eocene
rocks of the Green River, Washakie and Uinta Basins, Utah, Wyoming and
Colorado',.Contributions
to Geology, University of Wyoming, vol. 15-1, 1977, p. 37.."In
general, dates in the 'correct ball park' are assumed to be correct and
are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published
nor are
discrepancies
fully explained."
o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
Dr. C. Brooks, Professor
of Geology, University of Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Dr. D. E. James, Staff
Member in geophysics and geochemistry, Carnegie Institution of Washington,
Washington D.C., USA and Dr. S. R. Hart, Professor of Geochemistry, Department
of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, USA, 'Ancient lithosphere: its role in young continental volcanism',.Science,
vol. 193, September 17, 1976, p. 1093.."One
serious consequence of the mantle isochron.(equal
in duration; equal intervals of time).model
is that crystallization ages determined on basic igneous
rocks by the Rb-Sr whole-rock technique can be.greater
than the true age by many hundreds of millions of years. This problem
of inherited age is more serious for younger rocks and there are well documented
instances of conflicts between stratigraphic
age and Rb-Sr age in the literature."
o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
Prof. Gunter Faure, Department
of Geology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA, and Prof. James L.
Powell, Department of Geology, Oberlin College, Ohio, USA, in.Strontium
Isotope Geology, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York, 1972, p. 102.."These
results indicate that even total rock systems may be open during metamorphism.(the
process by which rocks are altered in composition, texture, or internal
structure by extreme heat, pressure and the introduction of new chemical
substances).and
may have their isotopic
systems changed, making it impossible to determine their geologic age."
o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
Professor D.M.S. Watson,
zoologist and Chair of Evolution at University College London.."Evolution
is a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically
coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special
creation, is clearly incredible."
This of course is an admission
that the foundation of evolution is not science,
but a rejection of the supernatural, a decided upon bent
by those having not yet moved from the ordinary low consciousness level.
Evolution then is simply an alternative narrow minded people have drummed
up to mislead those more ignorant than them.
