6000 year old earth

a reply to: peter vlar

I'm not talking about uranium, I was discussing 14C so I don't see why Uranium keeps being brought up to debunk the efficacy of 14C dating. Your citation is very clear on how 14C is created on Earth.

To quote from my self earlier in this same page, in hopes you will cease this particular misunderstanding:

Interestingly enough, the link reminds us that 14C can also be a result of Nitrogen modification instead of adding nucleides to carbon, and probably happens more often given that electrons hit carbons more often than protons.

Now the formation of 14C is also possible and observed through nuclear addition to 12C, not that it changes the datation technique much, just something you insist on denying. The comparison with Uranium formation is simple: Uranium is not formed by another element of the same weight shedding proton and gaining a neutron, so this isn't the only possible way to form any isotope, I used Uranium for an example because it had been included in this discussion previously.

But it is valid for calibrating analysis of 14C dating, which is what I am discussing. If you take a sample from a tree of known age and test it using 14C methodology and get the same results, then you're getting correct answers. It's quite simple.

No: carbon datation technique was inaugurated in 1950, in a time where 14C levels were highly variable, as they have been ever since.
Assuming this is new and unique to our lifetimes is intellectually dishonest, and trees alive in the 1950s or after reflect this. Trees dead before the 1950s also vary in relative concentrations of 14C, as does all life, and all that has been alive at some point. Correlating these relative concentrations with time of death isn't valid now, and hasn't been valid since the technique was first tried. Linking the fluctuations to nuclear fission experiments does not mean other factors are negligible, by any means.

I would be happy to comment on this if you could cite your quote.

My quote is: make popsicles, unplug the freezer, re plug the freezer, repeat a few times, see how that makes your ice core sample look. Assuming larger popsicles date back a year per freeze is naive at best: spring and summer will melt the surface several times a year, as is observable and reproducible.

And not once did I say they were applicable to ancient dates. I was simply correcting misinformation regarding 14C dating.

You claim trees and ice validate the idea that 14C relative concentration is constant, when in fact this is not the case, as is observable and reproducible.

There's no comparison though. You're comparing two different tests that are used for vastly different things. 14C is only used on organic matter and has a maximum window of 100KA if mass spectrometry is used and 50-60 KA if standard ratio comparisons are used. If you're using U-Pb analysis you can't use it to date rocks younger than 1MA but it is accurate within a known margin of error out to at least 4.5 BA Two different tests for different types of material.

The comparison isn't between those two techniques, but between our two styles of analysis of the same data.

I don't claim these techniques are the same and have not compared them.

I was always taught, since I was a kid, that God's day and years are different than ours. He lives.. on, near, in.. Whatever a star/planet/place that one rotation, as in, a day, takes a thousand of our Earth years.

This would make the "6000 year old earth " theory close to..2190000000 years old.

A few years ago our daughter was starting to figure out that santa wasn't real. "How can he get to all the houses in one night?" she asked. We made up some nonsense about timezones and daylight savings in an attempt to satisfy her learning mind with just enough logic that she'd let it go and just enjoy her holiday.

Your "god years" story is no different. Don't bother trying to make rational scientific sense of religion, just enjoy your "holiday".

a reply to: LordSnow21

?? First of all, I believe in God, yet I don't believe in the 6000 year translation particularly, I just wanted to discuss it.

I actually discount most of the bible because it's a fact that it's been screwed with many times over the years. I really don't care for the book.

a reply to: deadlyhope

Earth is far older then that friend.

I wouldnt put it past life on earth that we havent lived and destroyed ourselves over and over...... Just we keep at it as we have no idea of before this. - well apart from books and writtings on the walls to guide us again.

originally posted by: BlackProject
a reply to: deadlyhope

Earth is far older then that friend.

I wouldnt put it past life on earth that we havent lived and destroyed ourselves over and over...... Just we keep at it as we have no idea of before this. - well apart from books and writtings on the walls to guide us again.

It's fun to speculate about, and it makes for good fiction, but alas, there is no evidence that it's true, and plenty that it isn't.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: peter vlar


I'm not talking about uranium, I was discussing 14C so I don't see why Uranium keeps being brought up to debunk the efficacy of 14C dating. Your citation is very clear on how 14C is created on Earth.

To quote from my self earlier in this same page, in hopes you will cease this particular misunderstanding:

Interestingly enough, the link reminds us that 14C can also be a result of Nitrogen modification instead of adding nucleides to carbon, and probably happens more often given that electrons hit carbons more often than protons.

Now the formation of 14C is also possible and observed through nuclear addition to 12C, not that it changes the datation technique much, just something you insist on denying. The comparison with Uranium formation is simple: Uranium is not formed by another element of the same weight shedding proton and gaining a neutron, so this isn't the only possible way to form any isotope, I used Uranium for an example because it had been included in this discussion previously.

No: carbon datation technique was inaugurated in 1950, in a time where 14C levels were highly variable, as they have been ever since.

It was '48 actually when Libby first used this but that's just being pedantic. Post 1950's dates and remains are completely irrelevant. We aren't carbon dating remains from post world war 2.

Assuming this is new and unique to our lifetimes is intellectually dishonest, and trees alive in the 1950s or after reflect this.

It's not intellectually dishonest at all. I've never sent in a sample younger than my father for dating purposes. I have been privy to remains dated to between 10 an 48 K.

Trees dead before the 1950s also vary in relative concentrations of 14C, as does all life, and all that has been alive at some point. Correlating these relative concentrations with time of death isn't valid now, and hasn't been valid since the technique was first tried. Linking the fluctuations to nuclear fission experiments does not mean other factors are negligible, by any means.

Fluctuations due to nuclear detonations on earth have zero bearing on dating ancient objects.To insist that this is true is the intellectually dishonest position. If you were correct, then the tree in California dated to ~8 KA via dendrochronology and then tested independently using 14C dating would not give the same age from both methodologies. But the did and corroborate each other. Ice core samples contain trapped air and gas within them. We can determine atmospheric carbon and nitrogen levels quite easily. There are certainly variables in 14C dating but they are accounted for, calculated in and dates can be derived. All dates include the margin of error. It's not as if anybody has ever dated remains and stated "This person died august 17th 13,400 BP". You are simply wrong with your assertion that Nuclear detonations invalidate the data.

My quote is: make popsicles, unplug the freezer, re plug the freezer, repeat a few times, see how that makes your ice core sample look. Assuming larger popsicles date back a year per freeze is naive at best: spring and summer will melt the surface several times a year, as is observable and reproducible.

So you don't have a citation supporting the quote you posted previously? OK To state that layers in an ice core sample are unreliable because its the equivalent of unplugging a freezer, allowing everything to melt and then freezing it all again completely ignores that fact that U238 testing can be done on dust components and volcanic tephra as well as other contaminants. You can also cross reference dates with Cl-36 dating. Again, none of these dates are anywhere near as arbitrary as you believe them to be and cross referencing with multiple methods derive similar results. Testable, Repeatable. Time and time again.

You claim trees and ice validate the idea that 14C relative concentration is constant, when in fact this is not the case, as is observable and reproducible.

No, the opposite is in fact true, dendrochronology does corroborate 14C dates. THIS is what is observable and reproducible. There are controls with known dates. If they concur with the 14C dates then I fail to see what your issue is aside from not seeming to understand the process.

There's no comparison though. You're comparing two different tests that are used for vastly different things. 14C is only used on organic matter and has a maximum window of 100KA if mass spectrometry is used and 50-60 KA if standard ratio comparisons are used. If you're using U-Pb analysis you can't use it to date rocks younger than 1MA but it is accurate within a known margin of error out to at least 4.5 BA Two different tests for different types of material.

The comparison isn't between those two techniques, but between our two styles of analysis of the same data.

I don't claim these techniques are the same and have not compared them.


No? it certainly appeared as though your rebuttals hinged on and focused on Uranium dates.

I don't have a problem believing the science that proves the Earth is about 7000 years old. Fossils contain C14 and you can't have that in you unless you are less than 500,000 years old (90% less if you consider the Great Flood of Noah). Fossils have fleshy parts, and they can't have that if they are over 4,000 years old. Zircon still contains helium, and you can't have that with an Earth that is old (the experiments show the Earth is about 7,000 years old). Radioactive polonium halos (halos.com) show the Earth cooled suddenly (like in 5 minutes). Expansion of the Universe occurred in 20 hours or less according to E=MC^2. Empirical science (hard science) proves a young Earth. Evolutionists don't agree, because they think they need time to make evolution happen. Evolution cannot be proven on an empirical basis, and is therefore considered soft science. So, yes. About 7,000 years ago. And He made it in 6 regular days. In the Hebrew text, the word for "day" is "yom", and in the over 30 times it is associated with "the evening and the morning" in the Bible it always refers to a 24 hour day. It may be hard to comprehend that there is a God who can do it, but then you may not comprehend astrophysics, either.

a reply to: Jim Scott

Your understanding of fossils, c14 and dating is way off base. How many times must it be posted that you can't use carbon dating on fossils?

a reply to: Jim Scott

Polonium halos: Refuted, TL;DR:

Gentry's polonium halo hypothesis for a young Earth fails, or is inconclusive for, all tests. Gentry's entire thesis is built on a compounded set of assumptions. He is unable to demonstrate that concentric haloes in mica are caused uniquely by alpha particles resulting from the decay of polonium isotopes. His samples are not from "primordial" pieces of the Earth's original crust, but from rocks which have been extensively reworked. Finally, his hypothesis cannot accommodate the many alternative lines of evidence that demonstrate a great age for the Earth. Gentry rationalizes any evidence which contradicts his hypothesis by proposing three "singularities" - one time divine interventions - over the past 6000 years. Of course, supernatural events and processes fall outside the realm of scientific investigations to address.

Expansion of the Universe in 20 hours: I don't understand how that could be coming from E=mc^2. The Inflation phase of the universe directly after the Big Band itself is curios, but to say that the universe expanded to its todays size of observable >26.000.000.000 lightyears is beyond my scope. Disuss further?

Empirical science (hard science) proves a young Earth: please quote more examples, as these were.. bad.

a reply to: Jim Scott

"yom" is not always associated with a 24 hour day....

1115 times it's translated as "day".
635 times it's translated as "days".
172 time it is translated as "today".
and 45 times it is translated as "time".

among a plethora of other translations.

(Can you read the original hebrew? If you can, I'd be interested in hearing what you think of the original and why "yom" is followed by an ordinal number in Genesis 1...but is not prefixed by the definite article "the"...Genesis 1 is the ONLY place in the bible we see it used that way...)

A2D

a reply to: peter vlar

You are simply wrong with your assertion that Nuclear detonations invalidate the data.

The assertion is a strawman and is yours.

Again, my point is that a technique devised in 1950 based on the assumption that 14C relative concentrations are constant through time is not scientific because 14C relative concentrations have doubled between 1950 and 1970, and fluctuated highly ever since.

To estimate what the levels of 14C are in living things, one has to observe what they are, after devising the technique, therefore after 1950.

Coincidentally, nuclear detonations are recorded to have happened since the 1950s.
Are they the only factor of the observed fluctuation?
What makes you think that, and more importantly, how would you demonstrate it?

a reply to: LordSnow21

Don't bother trying to make rational scientific sense of religion, just enjoy your "holiday".

Not the best advice

Making sense of cosmology, religious or not, is for most serious student of cosmology the preferred approach, and if your god (if you won't accept the word god for your explanation of how the world and life came to be, fine, pick another word) is non sentient explosion and primordial soup, congratulations.
The estimated age of the world based off radioactivity isn't science.
The estimated age of the world based off supposed expansion is interesting, but seems to be bunk to those who delve into it scientifically as well:

www.sci-news.com...

a reply to: deadlyhope

It sounds like, as an adult, you're still living in your little boy world, trying to explain your Bible-based creationists beliefs. Good luck with that. I'll stick with science, not religion, for my physical world facts, thanks.

a reply to: TownCryer

You obviously haven't read anything but the title.

I don't care about the Bible. I don't even believe in the Bible as its factual that it's been messed with far too many times to even resemble the original script.

This was a discussion with an argument that since has been proven faulty at the least.

Sounds like you're a presumptive jerk as an adult.

a reply to: ManFromEurope

The big bang theory is hardly the most accepted anymore. Many modern scientists actually refute it, for the record.

a reply to: deadlyhope

For the record, 'Creation scientists' are anything but...

a reply to: peter vlar

If you were correct, then the tree in California dated to ~8 KA via dendrochronology and then tested independently using 14C dating would not give the same age from both methodologies.

wrong: en.wikipedia.org...

edit to add:

Ages for clonal colonies, often based on current growth rates, are estimates.[citation needed]

originally posted by: Prezbo369
a reply to: deadlyhope

For the record, 'Creation scientists' are anything but...

Interesting


Charles Hard Townes, winner of a Nobel Prize in Physics and a UC Berkeley professor makes the following observation:

"Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it's remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren't just the way they are, we couldn't be here at all. The sun couldn't be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to be here. Some scientists argue that "well, there's an enormous number of universes and each one is a little different. This one just happened to turn out right." Well, that's a postulate, and it's a pretty fantastic postulate — it assumes there really are an enormous number of universes and that the laws could be different for each of them. The other possibility is that ours was planned, and that's why it has come out so specially."

www.berkeley.edu...

Not that nobel prizes or academic recognition makes a scientist, but I'm interested in your definition.

Oxford's definition of a scientist definitely does not preclude creationists:
www.oxforddictionaries.com...

But maybe you know something I don't. Would you be kind enough to share?

a reply to: deadlyhope

I fully support your right to think what ever you want, and, to give yourself as many starts as you want. Rave on.

a reply to: wisvol

Now show us the actual peer reviewed creation science he's done, not just his personal religious beliefs.