Radiocarbon Dating Can't Prove an Old Earth

[Oceander]

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

And others say the same for Muhammad.  Who's correct?

[skeeter]

God exists outside of time.  He can do anything anywhere within a time flow as we understand it.  That doesn't make Him a liar, it just means we don't see the whole picture.

Not that I'm arguing for a young Earth or six 24-hour days of creation, mind you.  I don't presume to understand HOW God created the world; I only believe that He did so.

YMMV

Well said. Just as with the pre & post trib controversy, Calvanism vs Arminianism, etc, arguing about this is so much time wasted. The only issue that matters is belief in Essential Christian Doctrine.

[roamer_1]

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

Sorry for having been confusing  - My point is that they say one thing and then another... Like butter used to be bad for you, so you are supposed to eat margarine... Now margarine causes cancer and butter is healthy.

Rightly might put your head in a whirl.
If you paid em any mind.

[mirraflake]

We are not seeing the original design.

So you believe in evolution then?

@roamer_1

[Oceander]

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.])

The young Earth fallacy founders on very, very basic science, something as fundamental as the basic laws of thermodynamics.  For the Earth to have reached its present state of solidity after collapsing out of a cloud of interstellar dust orbiting the Sun would have taken at least 20 million years if the only source of heat was from Earths gravitational collapse (add in heat from internal radioactivity and it takes even longer).  Lord Kelvin, amongst others, worked this out in the 1800s.

That means that for any young Earth hypothesis to be correct, the fundamental laws of thermodynamics have to be radically wrong.  However, since those laws are more than adequately proven every time you start your cars engine, or brew a cup of coffee, it necessarily stands to reason that any young Earth hypothesis that requires the Earth to be younger than 20 million years is simply false. 

That, or else you have to believe that God made a false world and intentionally made it seem like what it is not. 

Your pick.  You can have a young Earth, or a God who is righteous and truthful; you cannot have both. 

[roamer_1]

And others say the same for Muhammad.  Who's correct?

And others for Apollo, and Baal,. and etc.

How does one prove a God?

Yahweh has specifically laid out the proofs to his claim. ONLY Yahweh.

1. If you can't see his hand in his creation, you're an idiot.
2. He has sent agents with signs accompanying.
3. (and most importantly) He has told us from the beginning, what will happen in the end. ONLY HE has a sovereign will capable of enforcing his predictions.

Yahweh's agents cannot nullify prophecy that has come before... ONLY Yahweh. Every other oracle, what was before can be modified.

The proof is in the Prophecy.

[Bigun]

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.

And so are God's laws.  They don't shift in order to accommodate anyone or anything.

[roamer_1]

So you believe in evolution then?

@mirraflake
As in one kind becoming another? LOL!

Of course not!

[musiclady]

Well said. Just as with the pre & post trib controversy, Calvanism vs Arminianism, etc, arguing about this is so much time wasted. The only issue that matters is belief in Essential Christian Doctrine.

Yep.

[the_doc]

The young Earth fallacy founders on very, very basic science, something as fundamental as the basic laws of thermodynamics.  For the Earth to have reached its present state of solidity after collapsing out of a cloud of interstellar dust orbiting the Sun would have taken at least 20 million years if the only source of heat was from Earths gravitational collapse (add in heat from internal radioactivity and it takes even longer).  Lord Kelvin, amongst others, worked this out in the 1800s.

That means that for any young Earth hypothesis to be correct, the fundamental laws of thermodynamics have to be radically wrong.  However, since those laws are more than adequately proven every time you start your cars engine, or brew a cup of coffee, it necessarily stands to reason that any young Earth hypothesis that requires the Earth to be younger than 20 million years is simply false. 

That, or else you have to believe that God made a false world and intentionally made it seem like what it is not. 

Your pick.  You can have a young Earth, or a God who is righteous and truthful; you cannot have both.

Your argument is so conspicuously specious that I feel that I must gently but publicly tease you.   

(I'll bet that there are quite a few lurkers who will immediately notice your fallacy.)

[Oceander]

And others for Apollo, and Baal,. and etc.

How does one prove a God?

Yahweh has specifically laid out the proofs to his claim. ONLY Yahweh.

1. If you can't see his hand in his creation, you're an idiot.
2. He has sent agents with signs accompanying.
3. (and most importantly) He has told us from the beginning, what will happen in the end. ONLY HE has a sovereign will capable of enforcing his predictions.

Yahweh's agents cannot nullify prophecy that has come before... ONLY Yahweh. Every other oracle, what was before can be modified.

The proof is in the Prophecy.

So if I cannot see what is not self-evident, then I'm an idiot?

[roamer_1]

That means that for any young Earth hypothesis to be correct, the fundamental laws of thermodynamics have to be radically wrong.

OR the presupposition that Earth in fact collapsed out of an interstellar cloud of dust is not true.

[skeeter]

So if I cannot see what is not self-evident, then I'm an idiot?

Not at all. No more than a Christian is inherently more righteous in his or her behavior than is a non Christian.

God speaks, whether or not we choose to hear depends more upon whats in our hearts than in our brains.

[roamer_1]

So if I cannot see what is not self-evident, then I'm an idiot?

No, If you cannot see what is in fact self evident, you are an idiot...

or rather, No, If ONE cannot see what is in fact self evident, ONE is an idiot...

I do not mean the 'you' in a personal sense.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Nope.  That God exists outside of time does not absolve Him of falsifying the existence of things that exist only within time.  If God intentionally made something so that it necessarily appeared to be older than it in fact is, then He intentionally created a falsehood, which is what liars do. 

There are no two ways around the question, and no amount of hairsplitting will finesse it.

One of the most arrogant statements I have ever read.

The guy presumes he can judge God who created him.

A surprise awaits.

[Suppressed]

The funny thing is, not a single reply on this entire thread addresses the point of the original post, which is that

"no rock formations, minerals, or organic material older than 57,000 years should contain detectable ¹⁴C"

yet
 

Since the mid-20th century, evidence is increasing that ¹⁴C exists in measurable amounts in carbon-bearing rocks and organic matter that secular scientists believe to be tens to hundreds of millions of years old.

And they posit that no good explanation has come to light for this.


Of course, as usual, they don't cite the scientific literature...only their own.

[truth_seeker]

No, If you cannot see what is in fact self evident, you are an idiot...

or rather, No, If ONE cannot see what is in fact self evident, ONE is an idiot...

I do not mean the 'you' in a personal sense.

Calling others "idiots" is not the best persuasion technique.

You dismissed my arguments about reliance on scientific measurements, for instance drinking water.

My 92 year old mother, degree in chemistry with honors, my 90 year old MIL, and I have all used "city" water.

Long healthy lives, good sanitation due to science, not in spite of it.

Therefore my scientific observation, measurement if you will, is that city water is fine. We at experts to keep it fine. Fluoride and all.

Construction is to start pretty soon on a major desalinization plant in my town. Science from Israel is behind it. Repeating a blueprint from another one built previously, down the coast.

Israel, science good. Makes the desert flower, and produce food for mankind. Use science, don't dismiss it.

[roamer_1]

Calling others "idiots" is not the best persuasion technique.

I wasn't calling anyone anything. I was paraphrasing the Bible.

You dismissed my arguments about reliance on scientific measurements, for instance drinking water.

My 92 year old mother, degree in chemistry with honors, my 90 year old MIL, and I have all used "city" water.

Long healthy lives, good sanitation due to science, not in spite of it.

meh. I can point to hillbillies likewise, who have never drank anything but creek water. Ingesting chlorine and fluoride all the time cannot be good for you. It certainly was not good for me. And since I now get my water from an artesian spring, my health has improved tremendously. In fact, I can't even tell you the last time I ingested treated water. Creek water? Spring water? All the time.

Therefore my scientific observation, measurement if you will, is that city water is fine. We at experts to keep it fine. Fluoride and all.

You can keep it.

Construction is to start pretty soon on a major desalinization plant in my town. Science from Israel is behind it. Repeating a blueprint from another one built previously, down the coast.

Israel, science good. Makes the desert flower, and produce food for mankind. Use science, don't dismiss it.

I don;t dismiss science, as I said up-thread. Neither do I blindly follow 'experts'

[Oceander]

One of the most arrogant statements I have ever read.

The guy presumes he can judge God who created him.

A surprise awaits.

Oh, I'm not judging God.  I take the view that God created the universe in such a way that it has a rational progression from a single starting point and that it is amenable to human understanding without resort to deus ex machina tricks.  That is, I think God is scrupulously honest and truthful.

The basic laws of thermodynamics make a young Earth impossible, and thus since God gave us thermodynamics, the young Earth hypothesis is false. 

[Oceander]

OR the presupposition that Earth in fact collapsed out of an interstellar cloud of dust is not true.

True.  But then you have to follow through on, and accept, all of the consequences that logically entails.  If you do so, you end up at the same point: a God who intentionally created a false world.  And a Solar system that defies the fundamental laws of physics God himself created. 

[roamer_1]

The basic laws of thermodynamics make a young Earth impossible, and thus since God gave us thermodynamics, the young Earth hypothesis is false.

And evolution defies the laws of entropy.

Now what?

[Oceander]

The funny thing is, not a single reply on this entire thread addresses the point of the original post, which is that 
yet
 
And they posit that no good explanation has come to light for this.


Of course, as usual, they don't cite the scientific literature...only their own.

Which, taken as true, presents an interesting question for continued scientific research, but definitely does not invalidate the basic concept of using radioactive decay as one means of measuring age, and most definitely cannot carry the weight the author wishes to put on it:  evidence for a young Earth hypothesis, because fundamental principles of physics make all young Earth hypotheses impossible.  Principles of physics that are too fundamental to be gainsaid for the sake of a young Earth hypothesis because your car wouldn't work if these principles were sufficiently wrong to justify a young Earth hypothesis. 

[Oceander]

And evolution defies the laws of entropy.

Now what?

How so?

A local increase in order is not inconsistent with a global increase in disorder.  If that were not true, then no increase in order, no matter how small or trivial, would be possible; refining iron ore into pure iron would be impossible. 

[roamer_1]

How so?

To quote JH Rush:

In the complex course of its evolution, life exhibits a remarkable contrast to the tendency expressed in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Where the Second Law expresses an irreversible progression toward increased entropy and disorder, life evolves continually higher levels of order.

A local increase in order is not inconsistent with a global increase in disorder.  If that were not true, then no increase in order, no matter how small or trivial, would be possible; refining iron ore into pure iron would be impossible.

But it isn't local. Evolution supposedly turned a clunky lizard into the very refined system that is a bird today. Outside of the predictive engineering necessary to get from that particular point 'a' to point 'b' (in itself a violation of any conceivable probability), the process is necessarily promoting improvement, refinement rather than entropy.

To wit: across the board, life is more refined now than it was then (according to science).

Your iron, as it were, refining itself into steel.

[the_doc]

Since the mid-20th century, evidence is increasing that 14C exists in measurable amounts in carbon-bearing rocks and organic matter that secular scientists believe to be tens to hundreds of millions of years old.
And they posit that no good explanation has come to light for this.

Of course, as usual, they don't cite the scientific literature...only their own.

They also cannot explain soft tissues, including intact DNA, found over and over in dinosaur fossils.  (These things were originally found by accident a few years ago, because no one had ever bothered to look for things that they KNEW could not survive for more than a few thousand years at most--certainly not for 65 millions years.  Now when they go back to the museums to re-check the fossil bones, they invariably find soft tissues that they say should not be there.)