The Crinum coal mine, located in Queensland, Australia, provides an interesting case study in the reliability and challenges of dating methods. It also demonstrates two fallacies: Cherry-Picking and Strawman.
First, this question is sometimes used by young-earth creationists to cast doubt on the reliability of dating techniques. Specifically, they point to trace amounts of carbon-14 found in ancient coal deposits and argue that this suggests a much younger age for the coal. Since carbon-14 dating is only effective for materials up to about 50,000 years old, they claim that its presence in coal undermines the entire framework of radiometric dating.
Can you see what’s wrong with this argument? Let’s focus on the Cherry-Picking and Strawman fallacies. The Cherry-Picking Fallacy occurs when someone selectively presents evidence that supports their claim while ignoring a broader body of data that contradicts it. In this case, young-earth proponents focus on an anomaly—trace carbon-14 in coal—while ignoring the overwhelming evidence confirming the coal’s Permian age of 275 million years ago. Instead of considering multiple dating methods that align with each other, they seize on a single point of data that can be explained by contamination, background radiation, or measurement limitations.
Next, the Strawman Fallacy happens when an argument misrepresents a position to make it easier to attack. By pointing to minor anomalies in carbon-14 dating, critics argue that all radiometric dating is unreliable. But this misrepresents how science works. Radiometric dating involves multiple independent methods that are used together to cross-verify results. No geologist relies on carbon-14 to date coal that is hundreds of millions of years old, so using this as a counterargument against geological dating is a classic strawman.
The Crinum coal mine teaches us an important lesson: critical thinking requires looking at the full body of evidence, not just selectively chosen data points.