A forum for discussion and criticism of specialized topics relevant (pro and con) to Creation Science - fossil dating, flood geology, C14, K/Ar, radio metric dating, diffusion dating, racemization dating, DNA dating, stellar and planetary evolution, erosion dating, fast stratification, interpretations of the geological column, baraminology, distant starlight problem, Y-chromosomal Adam/Noah/Aaron/Abraham, mitochondrial Eve, Tower of Babel, Proton-21 laboratory, Sodom and Gomorrah, OEC, YEC, Progressive creation, white hole cosmology, Carmeli cosmology, VSL theories, alternate electrodynamics, mantle plume theories, folding rock theories, RATE work, planetary magnetism, faint young sun paradox, moon recession, ocean mineral saturation, astrometry and proper motion surveys, very long baseline interferometry, CMBR, moon evolution, cosmological vs.
non-cosmological red shifts, polonium halos, Hydro Plates and Castastrophic Plates, varves, tree rings, noah's ark, over thrusts, lithification, hydrologic sorting, canopy theory, crater theory, planetary heating, ancient civilizations, Atlantis, trophical trees in the arctic, woolly mammoths and tropical trees in Siberia, UFOs and creationism, comets and orbital mechanics, planet satellite capture problems, planetary rings, origin of folded rocks, the Grand Canyon, the Green River valley, the Three Sisters, mountain formation, seafloor formation, tectonics, etc. Remember, you didn't ask for a "peer-reviewed article", but "references from the peer reviewed professional scientific literature".
So here is an article with over 40 "references from the peer reviewed professional scientific literature".
The reason I discourage creationists from debating you is you have comprehension problems, and they'll waste more time trying to correct your errors in understanding than having productive conversation. Giem provided has a list of the peer reviewed articles.
He wasn't using his own work as an example of a reference as you mistakenly insinuated..
There are some legitimate published papers on contamination in C14 dating and on spectrometer background noise levels mixed in with the usual Creationist woo from Snelling that was published at ICR.
Not a single peer-reviewed paper with actual results showing a valid C14 date obtained from a fossil specimen. You can try to explain away the presence of contamination, but then, that sort of fails when we end up sampling more and more fossils, like say Coal from the carboniferous era.
Carbon-14 in Fossil Carbon you are through reading, could you give Thornton, The reason I discourage creationists from debating you is you have comprehension problems, and they'll waste more time trying to correct your errors in understanding than having productive conversation. Giem provided has a list of the peer reviewed articles.
He wasn't using his own work as an example of a reference as you mistakenly insinuated.You're completely out of your league here, and you're not as informed as you present yourself to be.You're free to remain here and bloviate all you want. It was informative -- about your level of comprehension.Of course you can prove me wrong by giving the title, author, and journal of publication of such a paper here. Are you going to argue the whole carboniferous era is contaminated?Even Talk Origins and Wikipedia acknowledge it:the physicists want to find fossil fuels that have very little 14C.In the course of this work, they’ve discovered that fossil fuels vary widely in 14C content.