Radiocarbon Dating Can't Prove an Old Earth

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

@bolobaby @roamer_1
I think its the height of folly to think we can determine conclusively how the universe was created and how it functions from our little corner with our tiny little brains.

So all science is bad? Astrophysics should just quit?

[roamer_1]

So you think God wrote the bible? Mortal men wrote the bible, even according to the tenets of Christianity.

Mortal men, inspired by the Spirit of the living God. Moses took dictation.

[driftdiver]

So all science is bad? Astrophysics should just quit?

@Weird Tolkienish Figure

Boy that was a giant leap into the unknown there.

A true believer in science would have argued that the origins of the universe can be extrapolated through observations or something like that.    NOT jumped into emotional strawman.

[roamer_1]

I think its the height of folly to think we can determine conclusively how the universe was created and how it functions from our little corner with our tiny little brains.

It takes significantly more belief in the unprovable and unknown than it takes to believe in a creator.

That is more true than not. I am not against science. But I am against science pulling things outta their butt and calling it 'settled'.

[Polly Ticks]

So you think God wrote the bible? Mortal men wrote the bible, even according to the tenets of Christianity.

You don't have to be an atheist to dispute the young earth stuff.

I think that God inspired the mortal men who put pen to paper, but I'm not sure I'm following you with respect to how that pertains to the current discussion.

In any case, I agree with you that you don't have to be an atheist to believe in a millennia-old earth.  I personally find more than one theory to be equally plausible and easy to reconcile with my faith in the Creator. 

[Polly Ticks]

That is more true than not. I am not against science. But I am against science pulling things outta their butt and calling it 'settled'.

There you go.  In the end, it's all theory -- not settled -- until or unless someone can reproduce the creation of the world. 

I'll wait here.

[driftdiver]

That is more true than not. I am not against science. But I am against science pulling things outta their butt and calling it 'settled'.

Hubbles Ultra Deep Field image is a great example.   They focused the Hubble on one tiny point for about 11 days.  A point that is equal to roughly one thirteen-millionth of the total area of the sky. 

The resulting image contains an estimated 10,000 galaxies.     To think that we can capture light from such a tiny infinitesimal sample of the sky and time and then conclude anything definitively is folly.   Can we make guess?  Yes   Is it really freekin interesting?   yes   Could any one of a quadrillion factors make any one of those guesses wrong?  yes

[roamer_1]

There you go.  In the end, it's all theory -- not settled -- until or unless someone can reproduce the creation of the world. 

I'll wait here.

 :thumbsup2:

[roamer_1]

Hubbles Ultra Deep Field image is a great example.   They focused the Hubble on one tiny point for about 11 days.  A point that is equal to roughly one thirteen-millionth of the total area of the sky. 

The resulting image contains an estimated 10,000 galaxies.     To think that we can capture light from such a tiny infinitesimal sample of the sky and time and then conclude anything definitively is folly.   Can we make guess?  Yes   Is it really freekin interesting?   yes   Could any one of a quadrillion factors make any one of those guesses wrong?  yes

Oh, but a feller don't even have to go that far. Just the idea that they can measure things right here is folly.
Declaring the oceans are rising by a quarter inch a year, or some such... There are literally a million factors involved, but they say it like it's gospel truth. We cannot accurately measure ocean volume, nor perfectly calculate how much sediment is getting washed down to make the bottom come up, nor even determine the resting level of the surface, not to mention land subsidence, and etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

The lion's share of it is mere conjecture.

[musiclady]

This isn't new information, is it? 

Radiocarbon dating has always been limited, and using it to prove the age of the earth a game that's played to fool the naïve.

Now I'm outta here before anyone calls me an idiot flat-earther, or something similar.....

[the_doc]

You are in essence saying that God has to conform to your viewpoint or He is a liar.  I personally don't think it works that way. 


Edit to add:  Oops.  This was a discussion on the nature of radiocarbon dating, not the nature of God.  I apologize for side-tracking into a theology discussion, which I know the owner does not encourage.

I do think it is appropriate to add that the inorganic radiometric dating methods are also scientifically dubious.  Furthermore, the starlight distances mean nothing in a relativistic universe if it was stretched out by a Creator.  If we get fooled by our smugness, it's not our Creator's fault.  (That's all I have to say in the theological side of things on this science thread.) 

[Sanguine]

I presented a very simple argument to a young-earth Baptist minister when I was in college:

When I look into the sky at night, I see stars that are hundreds of millions of light years away. The light has taken hundreds of millions of years to reach Earth, indicating that there is a past at least hundreds of millions of years old.

He replied, "In God's universe, the speed of light need not be constant." (Just ignore the ridiculousness of what it would mean if God sped up the light between here and there and what that would mean for the future of light coming to us. Ignore that part.)

"OK, true," I replied, "but why would God show us a past that does not exist? Is God trying to trick us into believing the universe is millions or billions of years old? Is God a god of deception?"

His answer? "Get out of my office."

Now, I'm a follower of Christ and faithful to God, but that experience - and others similar to it - have led me to believe that young earth creationists are not interested in getting at truth, only to reaffirm their own beliefs. Need further proof? Read a book like "Scientific Creationism." In one chapter, they present an argument like that in the original post, designed to cast doubt on radiocarbon dating because of uncertainty around decay rates. A couple chapters later, they will use decay rate science to claim that the earth must be young based on the presence of certain elements on Earth because - you guessed it - the absolute nature of decay rates indicates that these elements would all be gone if the earth was old.

Sigh.

Good argument.

With regard to: "In God's universe, the speed of light need not be constant."  Of course it is - God set up this universe and in it, to the best of our knowledge, the speed of light is constant.

[roamer_1]

Good argument.

With regard to: "In God's universe, the speed of light need not be constant."  Of course it is - God set up this universe and in it, to the best of our knowledge, the speed of light is constant.

yeah... maybe not.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/speed-light-not-so-constant-after-all

[Sanguine]

yeah... maybe not.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/speed-light-not-so-constant-after-all

Ah, but it's not settled science you're presenting, is it?

[truth_seeker]

Oh, but a feller don't even have to go that far. Just the idea that they can measure things right here is folly.
Declaring the oceans are rising by a quarter inch a year, or some such... There are literally a million factors involved, but they say it like it's gospel truth. We cannot accurately measure ocean volume, nor perfectly calculate how much sediment is getting washed down to make the bottom come up, nor even determine the resting level of the surface, not to mention land subsidence, and etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

The lion's share of it is mere conjecture.

Yet we rely on measurement each and every day. We get into an automobile with an engine machined to carefully measured sizes, expecting it to run smoothly to our destination, and brakes measured to perform correctly.

We expect our drinking water and food to be free of contaminants, and it is tested with measurement equipment, and expert people.

We use observation, science, and various criteria to order our lives. We trust them. We sent people to the moon and back, based on science.

But are you saying when it comes to the curiosity about earth's origins and nature, forget about science?

If we are to some day witness a replacement for a human limb, I look to scientists, not Benny Hinn.

I don't say it that way to insult. But those rooms full of people to watch Benny Hinn, insult my intelligence.

[roamer_1]

Ah, but it's not settled science you're presenting, is it?

It is not my claim that ANY science is settled.

[bolobaby]

Ah, but it's not settled science you're presenting, is it?

@Sanguine

Young earth creationists will discredit science when it doesn't support a young earth and then throw science back at you when they think they can use it to bolster their argument.

You can't win with these guys so it boils down to a simple question: who you gonna believe? Them? Or your lying eyes?

[driftdiver]

Good argument.

With regard to: "In God's universe, the speed of light need not be constant."  Of course it is - God set up this universe and in it, to the best of our knowledge, the speed of light is constant.

@Sanguine
"To the best of our knowledge" meaning a sample size that is a million of a millionth that is being extrapolated out to the universe.

[roamer_1]

Yet we rely on measurement each and every day. We get into an automobile with an engine machined to carefully measured sizes, expecting it to run smoothly to our destination, and brakes measured to perform correctly.

There is no flight of fancy in machining.

We expect our drinking water and food to be free of contaminants, and it is tested with measurement equipment, and expert people.

I have no faith in city water whatsoever. Nor city food. In fact, I think it's killing a whole lot of folks and contributing to illness.

We use observation, science, and various criteria to order our lives. We trust them. We sent people to the moon and back, based on science.

No, YOU trust them. I do not. I think a good share of them are idiots.

But are you saying when it comes to the curiosity about earth's origins and nature, forget about science?

No, I am saying that science belongs in data and repeatable experimentation, not religion - Which it now, most certainly is.

If we are to some day witness a replacement for a human limb, I look to scientists, not Benny Hinn.
I don't say it that way to insult. But those rooms full of people to watch Benny Hinn, insult my intelligence.

Funny you should say that, because one of the true healings I have witnessed with my own two eyes was a short, withered limb grow and fill out... So much for Benny Hinn, eh?

[mirraflake]

Funny you should say that, because one of the true healings I have witnessed with my own two eyes was a short, withered limb grow and fill out... So much for Benny Hinn, eh?

I have never seen any amputated body part ever grow back but have seen or read about limb, face and even penis transplants performed by our wonderful medical staff and scientist.

You people who take the Bible literally how do you explain this?
You say  God designed us and is all knowing and perfect  yet there is aparantely flaws in his design.

Why do we have body parts that if removed do not affect our bodies function. i.e. tonsils, gall bladder, appendix, one kidney, hair removal, wisdom teeth, tail bone I am sure there is plenty more.

Why do men have nipples? if God knows us even before we are born if we are  a man or a woman why have nipples on men?

A person can believe in God yet also believe in old earth, evolution and other facts. As others have mentioned the Bible was translated numerous time sand written for a scientifically ignorant people of the time.



@roamer_1 

[Sanguine]

@Sanguine
"To the best of our knowledge" meaning a sample size that is a million of a millionth that is being extrapolated out to the universe.

Yes, and?  We can only do what we can do, and we are small, insignificant sparrows compared to our Maker and His Creation.

[Sanguine]

It is not my claim that ANY science is settled.

Exactly, but you were using that argument so it was a little confusing.

[Sanguine]

@Sanguine

Young earth creationists will discredit science when it doesn't support a young earth and then throw science back at you when they think they can use it to bolster their argument.

You can't win with these guys so it boils down to a simple question: who you gonna believe? Them? Or your lying eyes?

Science is used by us limited humans to measure and describe God's creation.  It's beautiful. 

[the_doc]

@Sanguine

Young earth creationists will discredit science when it doesn't support a young earth and then throw science back at you when they think they can use it to bolster their argument.

You can't win with these guys so it boils down to a simple question: who you gonna believe? Them? Or your lying eyes?

I have been following the debate for 40 years, and it seems to me that old earth atheists and theistic evolutionists will discredit science when it doesn't support an old earth and then throw science back at you when they think they can use it to bolster their argument.

(Even if I didn't care about the question  of Biblical authority, I think I would side with the young earth scientists.  Quite a few non-Christian scientists have switched from the evolutionary position to the young earth position after seriously examining the young earth evidence--which turns out to be a shockingly huge body of evidence that the mainstream scientists refuse to allow in their journals precisely because it doesn't fit their presuppositions.  [The whole mess reminds me of the way the C02 alarmists have tried to silence better scientists.])

[roamer_1]

I have never seen any amputated body part ever grow back but have seen or read about limb, face and even penis transplants performed by our wonderful medical staff and scientist.

False signs and wonders.

You people who take the Bible literally how do you explain this?
You say  God designed us and is all knowing and perfect  yet there is aparantely flaws in his design.

We are not seeing the original design.

Why do we have body parts that if removed do not affect our bodies function. i.e. tonsils, gall bladder, appendix, one kidney, hair removal, wisdom teeth, tail bone I am sure there is plenty more.

Actually, both tonsils and appendix now do have a purpose, according to your guys... So what else are they ignorant of that they will change their collective minds about in the future?

Why do men have nipples? if God knows us even before we are born if we are  a man or a woman why have nipples on men?

Injection mold points?  Beats me. Why is that a 'flaw'?

A person can believe in God yet also believe in old earth, evolution and other facts. As others have mentioned the Bible was translated numerous time sand written for a scientifically ignorant people of the time.

No, really, they can't. The thing in your way is the prophecy. To abuse the Bible in the sense that one would have to, destroys the very proofs he offers as to his existence and sovereignty.

@mirraflake