Problems with radioactive dating methods
Can anyone out there either confirm or disconfirm my suspicions?
Newer, more accurate techniques use mass spectroscopy. It doesn't take much contamination to spoil a sample with near-zero quantity of C14. Another possible avenue is C13, which has a small but non-zero neutron absorption cross section.I've been poking about on the internet again (as you do) and found a whole load of stuff by creationists about the problems with carbon 14 radiometric dating.Specifically they report (with some glee) that coal has been found to contain measurable amounts of carbon14 which it should not of course because it is about 300 million years old and dates from the carboniferous period.We will restore static content as quickly as possible.(Note: I think that 2006 should be 2008.
I know I visited several times in the last two years, last time being about a month or so ago.)What is more alarming is that the Google searches for "carbon 14 RATE", "carbon 14 diamond", and "carbon 14 coal" yield hits predominantly in woowoo fundamentalist sites, and no hits on the first 15 pages (10 links per page) to anything at or pandasthumb.org, period.
The cracker managed to get the TOA de-indexed by Google, and when the TOA was re-indexed on 2006/12/05, the cracker stepped up his efforts to direct webspam to the Google-bot.