And if the method is this prone to contamination, then it is hardly as trustworthy as claimed, so is an even weaker argument against the dates in the true record of Scripture.
I was looking at talk origins’ little archive on Diamonds and C14 in summary.
They say Radioisotope evidence presents significant problems for the young earth position.
They claimed certain dating methods are no longer used for certain rock types because they yield incorrect ages.
The methods that yield the expected ages are obviously trustworthy...
This is also a challenge for creation scientists and a warning not to rest in favourite hypotheses which do not honestly address constructive criticisms.
The word honest is a clue here that science is not a value free enterprise but actually requires an absolute ethical framework.
Origins) who appeal to background radiation in the detector as a source of contamination do not even understand that AMS doesn’t measure radiation but count atoms. But this would have produced less than one ten-thousandth of the measured amount even in the best case scenarios of normal decay, so that this cannot be a viable explanation for radiocarbon in diamonds.
Even worse, for this to be a real explanation, there must be independent evidence of high correlation of C ratios in a sample with its percentage of nitrogen content. In conclusion, Radiocarbon remains one of Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels.
Diamonds, being primarily carbon and with atoms in a tightly packed crystal lattice, are quite impervious to contamination.
Yet when these diamonds were tested, we once again find with diamonds, attempt to dismiss this problem by simply appealing to the possibility of contamination by modern carbon during the testing process.
so there you have it If there were any references to empirical scientific evidence supporting their claims, it was well hidden.