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.)

[truth_seeker]

I believe "science" has only been investigating "evolution" for a short time--maybe 200 years or less.

Given a few more hundreds of years, and "science" will have a much fuller understanding and explanation. 

None of the "scientific" investigation is intended in my view, to diminish the role of or existence of a "God."

Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. God is simply so big, to have had us mystified for a long, long time. Hence many explanations have emerged from the minds of men.

[roamer_1]

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.)

@the_doc

That really ought to be the end of it. The only reason for an old earth is to allow for evolution.
But give them a couple years and they'll come up with some incredibly complex reason what flesh can survive such a very long entombment.

And they'll cling to it with faith, despite back-bending complexity, because anything but God. Anything but the Flood.
Watch and see.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Oh, I'm not judging God.

Really?  better go back and read what you posted.  For your ease, here it is in its entirety

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.

You are determining on your own that God needs some type of absolution, and that he created a falsehood.

Your scientific background, or at least what I presume is your scientific background, is clouding your senses.

There are indeed some absolute truths about God, including He does not make mistakes, even in creating a being that makes mistakes like you.

[Suppressed]

And evolution defies the laws of entropy.

Uh, no it doesn't.

Does God hand-craft every snowflake against the laws of nature? Or is it possible, within the laws of nature, to create complexity out of disorder?

(A: The latter. Creation "scientists" are lying charlatans if they claim the laws of entropy/thermodynamics prevent evolution.)

[Suppressed]

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.

This is why I can't have those beliefs -- I refuse to worship Loki.

[roamer_1]

Uh, no it doesn't.

Does God hand-craft every snowflake against the laws of nature? Or is it possible, within the laws of nature, to create complexity out of disorder?

(A: The latter. Creation "scientists" are lying charlatans if they claim the laws of entropy/thermodynamics prevent evolution.)

Is it your supposition that snow flakes today are more complicated than in the past?

[Oceander]

Really?  better go back and read what you posted.  For your ease, here it is in its entiretyYou are determining on your own that God needs some type of absolution, and that he created a falsehood.

Your scientific background, or at least what I presume is your scientific background, is clouding your senses.

There are indeed some absolute truths about God, including He does not make mistakes, even in creating a being that makes mistakes like you.

No, I didn't.  I judged those who make the claim that God created a young Earth and found their position wanting because accepting it necessarily entails the conclusion that God is a liar if the young Earth hypothesis is correct. 

Since God cannot - by definition if you will - be a liar, then it necessarily follows that the young Earth hypothesis is false. 

QED

[Oceander]

Is it your supposition that snow flakes today are more complicated than in the past?

It doesn't have to be.  Is it your supposition that not a single snowflake today can possess as much order as did any snowflake ever in the past?

[Oceander]

This is why I can't have those beliefs -- I refuse to worship Loki.

What beliefs are those?

[Smokin Joe]

No, the blasphemy is in speaking contrary to the Word of God. Accepting your premise does terrible damage to the Bible, and tries to diminish it's reliability. It destroys prophecy contained within the Jubillee cycles. It denies the flood.

You forgot one choice... The one that is faultlessly true, because It IS Written:
He will cause your learned men to be fools... laughingstocks.

The third choice, that your science is wrong.
Believe YHWH's evidence, or believe yours... The choice in that is easy.

I put science in its proper perspective (I think).

Science is our attempt to understand the wonders Our Creator has made. Now we do indeed see through a glass darkly, and are limited by our own cognitive abilities to comprehend the changes on a planet assumed to be ever moving at its present speed, with the assumption that the rules have not changed. An Almighty God who can stop the sun in the heavens can certainly override all of our observed beliefs about how things work, and there is no guarantee those constants we have observed in the past few thousand years (in some cases, a few tens of years) are indeed ever constant. Only one thing is constant, that being the Dominion over all of creation YHWH has.

I understand the flaws in our perception, and that at best it provides a working model we can play with to put events in sequence and perspective, and enough room on the chart to squeeze in some details, but I do not see it as an absolute. It never will be, because at absolute best, our knowledge is limited.

I am a scientist, a geologist, and that gives me a depth of appreciation those who are not so conversant in the convulsions and events that have occurred on Earth may lack,  but all the philosophies of men are nothing in the Light of the Almighty, who knows all because He made it.

[Smokin Joe]

Radiocarbondating.com where really senior people meet.

Yeah, but they have that 'glow' about them....

[Smokin Joe]

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.

Now we get into relativity.
For The Almighty, moving at the speed of light (or faster, because light hadn't been made yet) six days pass...on the waters, on Earth, trundling through the cosmos, and for the cosmos itself, it moves more slowly. He can indeed create that in six days which seems so much longer in our time reference.

[Smokin Joe]

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.

You say He falsified something. I would say our perceptions may be in error first. I dealt with the relativity question above. His six days might seem different here. It is a human assumption, in fact a fundamental axiom that all the processes we currently have observed have been and always will be constrained by the apparent constraints of time and other interactions that we observe and have observed in a very short time span.
We are limited in our perception.

The two different balls of different mass may have hit the ground at the same time on Earth, dropped from a tower in Pisa, but if you released them at the same time in space, the big one would get there first.
Why? Because it's slightly greater mass would cause a slightly greater gravitational attraction, which would cause a slightly greater acceleration, which would decrease its transit time relative to the smaller mass.
Even our axioms fail outside the realm of our limited perceptions, and we don't even know how to measure all the fundamental forces we perceive yet, or we'd have a far better understanding of time and gravity.

In short, our best understanding of our surroundings is still not good enough.

[Polly Ticks]

You say He falsified something. I would say our perceptions may be in error first. I dealt with the relativity question above. His six days might seem different here. It is a human assumption, in fact a fundamental axiom that all the processes we currently have observed have been and always will be constrained by the apparent constraints of time and other interactions that we observe and have observed in a very short time span.
We are limited in our perception.

Perfect!  That is exactly what I was trying to say, but you are so much more eloquent. 
 

[roamer_1]

It doesn't have to be.  Is it your supposition that not a single snowflake today can possess as much order as did any snowflake ever in the past?

Doesn't matter. I don't suppose crystalline structures to be ordered.

[roamer_1]

I am a scientist, a geologist, and that gives me a depth of appreciation those who are not so conversant in the convulsions and events that have occurred on Earth may lack,  but all the philosophies of men are nothing in the Light of the Almighty, who knows all because He made it.

I can heartily agree with all that.

[Smokin Joe]

Doesn't matter. I don't suppose crystalline structures to be ordered.

Actually, although they seem to expand like fractals, the lattice structure is ordered.

In general, it is determined by the atoms/molecules involved, the size of the ions and relative charges. So it is with all crystals, especially minerals. That's why the angles between the corresponding faces on any two crystals of the same substance are the same, and those angle measurements were the beginnings of mineralogy. The structure of the earth is ordered, rather precisely, on a molecular level. Water is crystalline when frozen, and though the patterns of snowflakes are different because of their growth the lattice (the framework they can be aligned to) is the same.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

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

Lots of men claim to see/meet God. Cue Neitzsche's quote about a stroll through a lunatic asylum.

Bible is IMO a mixture of truth/fiction, tall tales, and folk legends. Even Jefferson thought the Bible was silly (which is why he tried to rewrite it).

[roamer_1]

Actually, although they seem to expand like fractals, the lattice structure is ordered.

In general, it is determined by the atoms/molecules involved, the size of the ions and relative charges. So it is with all crystals, especially minerals. That's why the angles between the corresponding faces on any two crystals of the same substance are the same, and those angle measurements were the beginnings of mineralogy. The structure of the earth is ordered, rather precisely, on a molecular level. Water is crystalline when frozen, and though the patterns of snowflakes are different because of their growth the lattice (the framework they can be aligned to) is the same.

I don't understand it with that depth, but looking at frost grow on the window, the process struck me as chaotic within the limits of it's mechanical means. It never painted the window the same way twice (design), nor did it seem to care how it started or where it went upon the glass, with the exception that it tended to start on the colder edge, and wind up covering the same relative space.

Frost is some cool stuff.

[roamer_1]

Lots of men claim to see/meet God. Cue Neitzsche's quote about a stroll through a lunatic asylum.

Bible is IMO a mixture of truth/fiction, tall tales, and folk legends. Even Jefferson thought the Bible was silly (which is why he tried to rewrite it).

Well thanks for your opinion, but as I said on another thread, you're going to have a hard time explaining the types of encryption contained within the text... both within it and subliminally. Those types of encryption are deliberate, precise, and well beyond the ability of man to construct. That Book is the most amazing construction I have ever seen.

And as a student of the prophecy... You'd better hold on to your hat.

[Smokin Joe]

I don't understand it with that depth, but looking at frost grow on the window, the process struck me as chaotic within the limits of it's mechanical means. It never painted the window the same way twice (design), nor did it seem to care how it started or where it went upon the glass, with the exception that it tended to start on the colder edge, and wind up covering the same relative space.

Frost is some cool stuff.

Yes, it is. The growth of the frost is what follows fractals. The actual crustal lattice is different, No matter what form grows, the molecular structure, the spacing between the atoms and molecules remains the same in the lattice, whether or not all of that framework gets filled in. Think of it like legos. You can make any number of things, but the blocks still hook up the same way. More of His genius, imho.

Fractals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal

[Luis Gonzalez]

See? Go back to my original post. Young earth creationists are only interested in reaffirming what they think is true despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Bolobaby, out.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." - F. Scott Fitzgerald

God created Earth and the Universe.

They are millions of years old and the species that populate the Earth have (during those millions of years) appeared, evolved and dissappeared for various reasons and at random intervals.

Why is all that so difficult to accept? 

[Smokin Joe]

Unfortunately, what passes for science nowadays starts with fundamental assumptions that may not be true, and all too often include the conclusions.

[roamer_1]

God created Earth and the Universe.

They are millions of years old and the species that populate the Earth have (during those millions of years) appeared, evolved and dissappeared for various reasons and at random intervals.

Why is all that so difficult to accept?

It goes flatly against what God has said. It breaks critical structures in the Bible. And it goes against the prophets and the Messiah.