Creationism and 6000 year old dinosaurs.

[ravergirl]

What evidence do you have to support either conclusion?

Oh I have PLENTY of insufficient evidence. fortunately I have the wherewithal to not prematurely put all my eggs in one basket. I'm not concrete on that...but (also fortunately) I don't have to ONLY believe hard line scientific "fact" because I know that fact can be changed and science hasn't unearthed everything.

[The One Who Is]

Hey, church, can you respond to the Mount St. Helens dating problem? I'm curious what your take on the matter is.

Nice to see a good description of radiometric dating. Most people shy away from explaining it.

[churchanddestroy]

Oh I have PLENTY of insufficient evidence.

Oh? Like what?

fortunately I have the wherewithal to not prematurely put all my eggs in one basket. I'm not concrete on that...but (also fortunately) I don't have to ONLY believe hard line scientific "fact" because I know that fact can be changed and science hasn't unearthed everything.

The dating method I've illustrated in my above post is one of the most refined methods of dating matter. Read my post, and if you disagree with U-Pb dating, please explain to me why.

[Copasetic]

Yes. First of all the age of the earth as accepted by modern science has fluctuated wildly through the years. The variance in these dates is around 3.5 billion years. That's alot.

Here's some data showing the scientifically accepted age of earth in years through time.

1850 - 100 million

1932 - 1.6 billion

1947 - 3.4 billion

1976 - Present 4.6 billion

Now, the most recent estimates are based on modern radiometric dating methods. As you can see the recent revision has a variance of 1.2 billion years. That's alot.

Next problem, fossils used to support the theory of evolution have been dated with these methods. If there is a significant margin of error in dating the age of the earth, then it is not improper to assume that the fossils have also been incorrectly dated. Only igneous rocks can be dated using radiometric methods and fossils are not usually contained in this type of rock. Even if there is some igneous rock mixed in with the layers of sedimentary strata, there is no way to verify that the igneous rock was not much older than the layers of sediment that contain fossils.

Also, rocks produced from the Mt. St. Helen's eruption in the 1980's have been dated with modern potassium argon techniques and found to be hundreds of thousands of years older than they are in fact.

You're correct. By dating rocks alone we cannot get the age of the Earth, because its rocks are recycled from time to time. The oldest rock formations on Earth are around 3.8 billion years old. There are a few places where the recycling of the Earth is slow will give us older, more accurate dates. There have been some Zircon crystals dated to 4+ billion years, 4.3 for the oldest I believe -There have also been some lead-lead ores found which yield a date of 4.54 bya.

Rocks dated from the moon yield a date of 4.3-4.5 bya. Rocks from the moon are nice because there is no plate tectonics nor atmosphere to recycle rocks there. This still only gives a max age for the Earth moon system, as lots of evidence points the moon at one point being part of Earth.

The date of 4.55 billion years was determined in the 1950's by dating meteorites. Certain meteorites are leftovers from the accretion disk from the formation of our solar system and as such work as a more reliable date as to when the Earth was actually forming.

We also have Martian meteorites which get blasted off of Mars on occasion, they yield a date of 4.5 billion years.

So all the evidence points to the formation of the Earth taking place around 4.54 billion years ago.

Hope that helps

You know as well as everyone on here that has discussed it the Mt. St. Helen's dates are unreliable. The lab they were sent too specifically stated "We cannot date rocks less than 1 million years of age". In fact because of current technological limits no one tries to date rocks less then a few million years old with K-Ar techniques. Another case of creationists being deliberately misleading (lying). How again do you guys call yourself the "moral right"?

[churchanddestroy]

Oh I have PLENTY of insufficient evidence.

Oh? Like what?

fortunately I have the wherewithal to not prematurely put all my eggs in one basket. I'm not concrete on that...but (also fortunately) I don't have to ONLY believe hard line scientific "fact" because I know that fact can be changed and science hasn't unearthed everything.

The dating method I've illustrated in my above post is one of the most refined methods of dating matter. Read my post, and if you disagree with U-Pb dating, please explain to me why.

[churchanddestroy]

Hey, church, can you respond to the Mount St. Helens dating problem? I'm curious what your take on the matter is.

I was about to until I realized that Copasetic got to it before me. Certain dating methods only work for so long, for instance, Carbon 14 decays at a much faster rate that 235-U. Off the top of my head, I think the upper limit for c-14 dating is several thousand years. The creation "scientists" used the wrong dating method on the rocks, and thus got faulty readings, which they, being all about morality and all that, used to mislead everyone.

Nice to see a good description of radiometric dating. Most people shy away from explaining it.

See the funny thing is that so many people don't know what they're talking about when they refer to it... but I learned about it in geology 101. Its really not that complex a subject to grasp.

[Copasetic]

Hey, church, can you respond to the Mount St. Helens dating problem? I'm curious what your take on the matter is.

Nice to see a good description of radiometric dating. Most people shy away from explaining it.

There is no problem. Radiometric dating is a tool, like any tool if used incorrectly it will yield poor results. You don't try an K-Ar date rocks less than a few million years old for the same reason you don't stick your hand in your turned on blender. Poor results.

[The One Who Is]

I was about to until I realized that Copasetic got to it before me. Certain dating methods only work for so long, for instance, Carbon 14 decays at a much faster rate that 235-U. Off the top of my head, I think the upper limit for c-14 dating is several thousand years. The creation "scientists" used the wrong dating method on the rocks, and thus got faulty readings, which they, being all about morality and all that, used to mislead everyone.

Oh right, I honestly never thought about the longer decay rates making it unreliable with short periods of time. It should have been blindingly obvious.

See the funny thing is that so many people don't know what they're talking about when they refer to it... but I learned about it in geology 101. Its really not that complex a subject to grasp.

It is rather sad. I once had a debate with someone who claimed he could prove dinosaurs were millions of years old. When I asked him if he could explain a bit, he simply said the word "isotopes." When I asked him to clarify, he repeated that one word insistently with no new information whatsoever. It was like a religious chant. I'm still not sure to this day whether I actually disagreed with him or not.

[ravergirl]

Oh? Like what?

Like the kind that is insufficient and not accepted by the scientific community. I'm not going to sit here and be admonished by the mr. sciences of the forums. I'm not a new poster and it would take all day long to compile a list, and if you want to know some of the theories that I give credence to, check the humans and dino thread because they are already in there...and before you say something along the lines of "link it..." no, research it.

I'm not disagreeing with science just to be a pain in someones patootie. I believe a handful of things from the scientific community and from *gasp* the creationist bunch...There aren't any accredited scientists that A) totally respect both groups work and have their findings posted on the internet for easy access.

sorry.

The dating method I've illustrated in my above post is one of the most refined methods of dating matter. Read my post, and if you disagree with U-Pb dating, please explain to me why.

Scientists cannot recreate things like asteroids hitting the earth and their effects, bombs and their effects, nature and all of it's wonders, there are so many factors that can effect breakdown. Prove to me that isotope decay can NOT be sped up or slowed down...

[AlexG]

Prove to me that isotope decay can NOT be sped up or slowed down...

You'd have to take a few physics courses.

[churchanddestroy]

Oh right, I honestly never thought about the longer decay rates making it unreliable with short periods of time. It should have been blindingly obvious.

Sure, I mean, given what we know about how carbon decays in general, for instance I left some leftover pasta in the fridge for a couple of weeks and it got... well, very very messy, it really is not surprising that c 14 dating is limited to about 65 thousand years. Carbon decays fast, as I found out with the pasta.

The thing that bugs me is I always see people claiming that radiometric dating is wrong, and when I ask why they never give me a good answer, if they answer at all.

They might say "well, my gut feeling is that the earth is x thousands of years old", to which I say, "sucks for your gut because radiometric dating tells us otherwise."

It is rather sad. I once had a debate with someone who claimed he could prove dinosaurs were millions of years old. When I asked him if he could explain a bit, he simply said the word "isotopes." When I asked him to clarify, he repeated that one word insistently with no new information whatsoever. It was like a religious chant. I'm still not sure to this day whether I actually disagreed with him or not.

Oh sure, whats incredible is that the group of people who are supposed to be the most moral are lying, cheating and being generally sneaky and devious because they know that they have nothing on science. So instead of realizing that scientific discoveries and spiritual beliefs don't necessarily conflict, they hole up in their little ignorant shells of circular reasoning.

[ravergirl]

You'd have to take a few physics courses.

thats kind of frickin selfish. Here is this info, you can only have it if you pay someone to tell it to you.

[annmariet]

thats kind of frickin selfish. Here is this info, you can only have it if you pay someone to tell it to you.

I don't think it is selfish to expect someone to have the knowledge to understand something. I have taken enough courses in science that I understand at a basic level, but once it gets past that I have to admit I can't tell if it is correct since I am not educated enough in that area to know.

I also realize that I am not educated enough in some areas to know that I don't know enough to tell someone that they are wrong, and this is where some creationists (no one in particular) get rather annoying, somehow they know enough about really technical scientific processes, with out the need for the appropriate education.

[ravergirl]

I don't think it is selfish to expect someone to have the knowledge to understand something. I have taken enough courses in science that I understand at a basic level, but once it gets past that I have to admit I can't tell if it is correct since I am not educated enough in that area to know.

I also realize that I am not educated enough in some areas to know that I don't know enough to tell someone that they are wrong, and this is where some creationists (no one in particular) get rather annoying, somehow they know enough about really technical scientific processes, with out the need for the appropriate education.

I have taken a lot of science courses too.

im not a creationist. im half/half.

if I a layperson have to accept that radiometric dating is accurate, there needs to be a way to SHOW me it is accurate without me HAVING to take physics courses. Otherwise these people won't get funding, because what if I am a millionaire wanting to do some philanthropy by way of funding a dig but don't want to waste my money on p***-poor technology that will most likely spit a date out that is going to be reversed in 5 years.

[churchanddestroy]

Like the kind that is insufficient and not accepted by the scientific community.

The operative word here being insufficient.

I'm not going to sit here and be admonished by the mr. sciences of the forums.

Well forgive me for placing my bets on the reliable, testable, falsifiable and repeatable evidence.

I'm not a new poster and it would take all day long to compile a list, and if you want to know some of the theories that I give credence to, check the humans and dino thread because they are already in there...

Great, neither am I. Feel free to compile a list because I am completely ready to refute it. I'm always open to new evidence, but seeing as how you have already admitted that your evidences are insufficient I see no reason to give your sentiments any credence.

and before you say something along the lines of "link it..." no, research it.

Uh huh.

I'm not disagreeing with science just to be a pain in someones patootie. I believe a handful of things from the scientific community and from *gasp* the creationist bunch...There aren't any accredited scientists that A) totally respect both groups work and have their findings posted on the internet for easy access.

sorry.

Uh huh. Feel free to explain exactly what you disagree/agree with from both sides. If you just sit here rambling all you are giving us is useless conjecture which does not advance your part of the debate in any way shape or form.

Prove to me that isotope decay can NOT be sped up or slowed down...[/b]

I'm not a physicist, so my answers aren't all encompassing or definitive, but I can say that because we can cross check certain methods of radiometric dating with other methods, and that I can say that those cross checks all seem to add up to the same numbers, I see no reason to conclude that isotope decay would be naturally sped up or slowed down. The methods all support one another in their own right.

thats kind of frickin selfish. Here is this info, you can only have it if you pay someone to tell it to you.

My current course of study will hopefully lead me to eventually becoming a professor of biology. Are you suggesting that I should just teach for free? How would I pay my bills? How would I support my family? If you don't want to pay for school then learn how things work yourself.

[bleedingelite]

My current course of study will hopefully lead me to eventually becoming a professor of biology. Are you suggesting that I should just teach for free? How would I pay my bills? How would I support my family? If you don't want to pay for school then learn how things work yourself.

Ravergirl, there are actually free online classes you can take at colleges like Berkeley and Notre Dame. They offer everything from physics to biology, though they won't actually count toward a degree. If you are truly interested, there are ways out there to get the education you seek.

And I was being sarcastic with my previous post saying that the earth is only 6,000 years old. That's ridiculous. The bible is ridiculous. The universe is so incomprehensibly huge, and we are so tiny. It just boggles my mind that people actually think some guy just popped the earth into existence and, against a universe full of conflicting data, did it only a few thousand years ago.

[AlexG]

if I a layperson have to accept that radiometric dating is accurate, there needs to be a way to SHOW me it is accurate without me HAVING to take physics courses

So you want to understand it without learning to understand it?

[ravergirl]

The operative word here being insufficient.

I know it is insufficient evidence. I'm not stupid Church, I just happen to believe in God. I don't cling to spiritual ideologys strictly nor do I completely trust science to explain everything.

I'm a fence rider, I am not going to apologize for it.

Well forgive me for placing my bets on the reliable, testable, falsifiable and repeatable evidence.

Okay, I forgive you. (not everything can be tested, im just letting you know)

Great, neither am I. Feel free to compile a list because I am completely ready to refute it. I'm always open to new evidence, but seeing as how you have already admitted that your evidences are insufficient I see no reason to give your sentiments any credence.

I'm not compiling a list, I would get so very fired.

Uh huh. Feel free to explain exactly what you disagree/agree with from both sides. If you just sit here rambling all you are giving us is useless conjecture which does not advance your part of the debate in any way shape or form.

I guess that depends on what you call useless conjecture. I read a lot of books, I can't copy and paste books, and coming up with a bibliography for what i have read in the past year, could take a considerable amount of time, and even if I did..It would be pointless. you wouldn't read it.

I'm not a physicist, so my answers aren't all encompassing or definitive, but I can say that because we can cross check certain methods of radiometric dating with other methods, and that I can say that those cross checks all seem to add up to the same numbers, I see no reason to conclude that isotope decay would be naturally sped up or slowed down. The methods all support one another in their own right.

Wow, you aren't even a physicist? What say you about having to retest everything EVER discovered everytime there is an advance i radiometric technology?

My current course of study will hopefully lead me to eventually becoming a professor of biology. Are you suggesting that I should just teach for free? How would I pay my bills? How would I support my family? If you don't want to pay for school then learn how things work yourself.

No that isnt what I was inferring

Ravergirl, there are actually free online classes you can take at colleges like Berkeley and Notre Dame. They offer everything from physics to biology, though they won't actually count toward a degree. If you are truly interested, there are ways out there to get the education you seek.

And I was being sarcastic with my previous post saying that the earth is only 6,000 years old. That's ridiculous. The bible is ridiculous. The universe is so incomprehensibly huge, and we are so tiny. It just boggles my mind that people actually think some guy just popped the earth into existence and, against a universe full of conflicting data, did it only a few thousand years ago.

oh.

[ravergirl]

So you want to understand it without learning to understand it?

no Alex. I have the capability of understanding it.

You cannot tell me that you HAVE to take physics in order to understand physics.

[AlexG]

no Alex. I have the capability of understanding it.

You cannot tell me that you HAVE to take physics in order to understand physics.

You have to learn physics to understand physics. If you can learn it with taking classes, great.

[GIDEON MAGE]

Let us look at a Jewish interpretation from about 200 years ago:

http://www.fixedearth.com/Cobb%20Premises.htm

Recently, astrophysicists revised their estimate of the age of the universe to 13.5 billion years. Not to worry. The universe’s age will be revised within a relatively short period of time back to 15 to 16 billion years. Why? Because of the following:

Rabbi Nechunya ben HaKana was a revered 1st century Kabbalist. He asserted that if you knew how to use the 42-letter name for God, you could decipher a lengthy time between the creation of the universe and man. He estimated [some 2,000 years ago] the age of the Universe to be 15.3 billion years [the same age many modern astro-physicists have recently arrived at]. (http://members.aol.com/mseedfaith/mrpg26.htm p. 7 of 26) Remember: This estimate was made in the 1st century by a Kabbalah rabbi, not by a modern astrophysicist.

Then there was Rabbi Yitzchak of Akko (a student of Rabbi Moses Nachmanides, late medieval). He concluded from the Zohar that the first creation was 15.8 billion years ago. (soc.culture.jewishFAQ:JewishThought(6?12), pp. 5,6.) What is interesting here is that Rabbi Yitzchak used the Zohar for his estimate, whereas Rabbi ben HaKana had used the Torah for his.

There are also well-known modern Kabbalists who use their holy books to ascertain the age of the universe. According to Morris Engelson, “I show in my book (The Heavenly Time Machine: The First Six Days) procedures and commentary that lead to a universe age of between 14 and 16 billion years, depending on which procedure one chooses to follow. Some of these numbers can be traced back to the first century, almost 2,000 years ago. There is a deeply hidden knowledge in the Torah that yields these numbers….”

(Further Essays from the Author of “The Heavenly Time Machine: The First Six Days”, by Morris Engelson, p. 4 of 7. http://www.peez.com/~jsc/heavenly_tm_essy_6day-html)

Not to be outdone, modern Ph.D.s get involved in estimating the age of the universe using mystical methods. For example: According to modern Kabbalist physicist Gerald L. Schroeder: “Let’s look at the development of time, day by day, based on the expansion factor [1 million times 1 million from start till now]. The calculations come out to be as follows:

The first Biblical day lasted 24 hours…But…from our perspective it was 8 billion years.

The second day of 24 hours…was 4 billion years.

The third day of 24 hours…was 2 billion years.

The fourth day of 24 hours…was 1 billion years.

The fifth day of 24 hours…was ½ billion years.

The sixth day of 24 hours…was ¼ billion years.

Then you add it up and you get 15 ¾ billion years…the same as modern cosmology allows….” (The Science of God by physicist Gerald L. Schroeder. Broadway Books, New York, 1998.]

What is intriguing about the above is that many modern astrophysicists arrived at the same age for the universe as was first proposed by a 1st century Kabbalah rabbi.

Once again, the Jews are about 2000 years ahead of the Christian church, intellectually!

[ravergirl]

link

Serious Problems With Dating Methods

By Bill Jahns

Why do geologists so frequently fail to understand that the biblical Flood was the force that created some geologic formations? One important answer lies in the way they date these formations.

The theory of evolution has become so ubiquitous in the scientific world today that it even distorts the way geological formations are dated. However, these dating methods have significant problems that can lead to serious errors of interpretation.

One of the most popular dating methods, carbon-14 (14C), is used for dating plant or animal remains. The book The Dynamic Earth explains the basis for this method: "Radiocarbon is continuously created in the atmosphere through bombardment of nitrogen-14 (14N) by neutrons created by cosmic radiation. 14C, with a half-life of 5730 years, decays back to 14N . . . As long as the production rate remains constant, the radioactivity of natural carbon remains constant because [the] rate of production balances the rate of decay.

"While an organism is alive and is taking in carbon from the atmosphere, it contains this balanced proportion of 14C. However, at death the balance is upset, because replenishment by life processes such as feeding, breathing and photosynthesis ceases. The 14C in dead tissues continually decreases by radioactive decay" (Brian Skinner and Stephen Porter, 1989, pp. 138-139). By measuring the amount of carbon-14 and comparing that amount to the original, scientists can obtain a date for the death of the organism.

However, there are many problems with the dates obtained through this method. For example, dating living mollusks by the carbon-14 method often yields clearly errant results—for instance, finding the mollusks to be up to 2,300 years old ("Radiocarbon Dating: Fictitious Results With Mollusk Shells," Science, Vol. 141, p. 634). Carbon-14 dating methods are obviously affected by the environment.

Archaeologist John McRay notes: "Unfortunately, several recent discoveries combine to indicate that carbon 14 is not as valuable as was once hoped: (1) radioactive carbon atoms may not have existed in the earth's atmosphere before 2000 B.C.; (2) the natural concentration of carbon 14 in the atmosphere has varied in certain periods, and (3) there is a high probability of sample contamination" (Archaeology and the New Testament, 1991, p. 34).

Recently a new method—accelerator mass spectrometry—has been used to date ancient items. This method has given a different date than previously accepted for the earliest Mayan civilization.

"The oldest known Maya turns out to be younger than archaeologists originally believed. The remains of a woman found below a layered platform at a site called Cuello in northern Belize had been thought to be more than 4,000 years old . . . As a result of new dating methods, about a thousand years have been trimmed from the chronology. Norman Hammond of Boston University, who began digging at Cuello in the 1970s, says the remains now are believed to be from about 1200 B.C., still earlier than any other known Maya settlement.

"The accelerator mass spectrometer allows scientists to analyze the bones of the ancient Maya without severely damaging them. The new technique can date carbon samples weighing only a few milligrams; a specimen the size of a match head will do" ("Oldest Known Maya: Not Quite So Old," National Geographic, November 1990). Here a new dating method has changed by 1,000 years the earliest accepted date of Mayan civilization.

Consider then. Radiometric dating methods (those measuring geologic time by rate of radioactive decay) have been used to date formations that could be associated with Noah's Flood. These dates supposedly prove these formations are millions of years old rather than thousands. Yet we find that different methods can yield radically different results.

As The Science of Evolution explains: "Several methods have been devised for estimating the age of the earth and its layers of rocks. These methods rely heavily on the assumption of uniformitarianism, i.e., natural processes have proceeded at relatively constant rates throughout the earth's history . . . It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological 'clock'" (William Stansfield, 1977, pp. 80, 84).

The potassium-argon [K-Ar] dating method, used to date lava flows, also has problems—as shown by studies of Mount St. Helens. "The conventional K-Ar dating method was applied to the 1986 dacite flow from the new lava dome at Mount St. Helens, Washington. Porphyritic dacite which solidified on the surface of the lava dome in 1986 gives a whole rock K-Ar 'age' of 0.35 + OR - 0.05 million years (Ma). Mineral concentrates from this same dacite give K-Ar 'ages' from 0.35 + OR - .06 Ma to 2.8 + OR - 0.6 Ma. These 'ages' are, of course, preposterous [since we know the rock formed recently]. The fundamental dating assumption ('no radiogenic argon was present when the rock formed') is questioned by these data.

"Instead, data from this Mount St. Helens dacite argue that significant 'excess argon' was present when the lava solidified in 1986 . . . This study of Mount St. Helens dacite causes the more fundamental question to be asked—how accurate are K-Ar 'ages' from the many other phenocryst-containing lava flows worldwide?" (Stephen Austin, "Excess Argon within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Volcano," Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1996, pp. 335-344).

In layman's terms, these volcanic rocks that we know were formed in 1986—less than 20 years ago—were "scientifically" dated to between 290,000 and 3.4 million years old!

Such examples serve to illustrate the fallibility of the dating methods on which many modern scientists rely so heavily. GN

Edited October 30, 2008 by ravergirl

[Copasetic]

no Alex. I have the capability of understanding it.

You cannot tell me that you HAVE to take physics in order to understand physics.

No one is saying you don't have the capability, but you don't know until you try. The simple fact of the matter is most people can't just pick up a physics or math textbook and learn physics or math. Despite the blow to our egos, the vast majority of the people on this Earth are simply not capable of teaching themselves this stuff outside of a formal educational setting.

You maybe one of few in a millions that can simply learn physics by reading it (though I doubt it), but the point is you still have to actually learn physics to understand it.

link

Read the link I sent you, all of this was addressed there.

[ravergirl]

No one is saying you don't have the capability, but you don't know until you try. The simple fact of the matter is most people can't just pick up a physics or math textbook and learn physics or math. Despite the blow to our egos, the vast majority of the people on this Earth are simply not capable of teaching themselves this stuff outside of a formal educational setting.

You maybe one of few in a millions that can simply learn physics by reading it (though I doubt it), but the point is you still have to actually learn physics to understand it.

let me reiterate a couple things. Physics can be translated to a person that has had a basic education in physics. a full understanding cannot be ascertained without a formal education. The reason there is no error in radiometric testing shouldn't be that complicated.

Read the link I sent you, all of this was addressed there.

[Guyver]

Wow! A couple of evolutionists criticize the "moral right" and call us liars and so it must be true! Now that's impressive thinking skills on your part. You guys are so smart.

I wish I had such a solid grasp on reality.