Are these the false prophets God warned us about?

It’s the carbon isotope ratios that matter in age determination. The absolute amounts of each carbon isotope present pertains to the ability to quantitate each isotope.

Leeching typically doesn’t selectively eliminate one isotope of carbon over another. They behave the same chemically.

Now in isochron dating, where the relative proportions of isotopes of different elements (chemically different), is where one would need to consider differential loss of one or more of the element. That because of the differences in the chemistry of the elements.

General rule: The numbers of electrons and protons in an atom have a much greater effect on chemistry than variations in the number of neutrons. One many see slight effects due to mass differences in isotopes but that difference decreases higher up the atomic number.

1 Like

There are many routes of contamination and noise in these experiments.

1 Like

Hi Adam. Say I’m troubleshooting an industrial electical box, and find a test point to be OFF. Does my sensitive VOM show zero? No, the voltage flickers, positive, now negative. But I know that dance means nothing. It is just noise. The leads register noise from the environment. Noise is inherent to every instrument ever devised. Ultimately, it is inherent in the laws of the universe itself.

The limit for radiocarbon dating is generally considered to be about 50,000 years. The further back you go, the larger the error bar, the larger the ratio of noise to signal, the larger the ratio of C12 current to registrations at the C14 detector. Past 50,000 years, the noise is swamping the signal, past 60,000 years, you have lost it. And the people who know this best are those who work exclusively doing these analysis in AMS dating labs.

Do not like the answer you get back from experts? Well then, instead ask apologists who have never touched a mass spectrometer. Here is what they will learn you. First, signal is unreliable. When a object date is returned showing say 30,000 years, comfortably within the calibrated range of C14, that according YEC is just an interpretation, never mind that it has been exhaustively cross correlated with independent proxies such as tree rings, varves, and other radiometric techniques. So the signal is just dismissed. But then when it serves some useful rhetorical slight of hand, now that the results are well into the domain of random noise, YEC calls it signal. Exactly backwards, YEC dismisses signal as noise and embraces noise as signal.

Consistency is the hallmark of validity, so to see AiG argue that the results vary, so it cannot be machine background, is beyond ignorant. How far beyond ignorant? Probably beyond into deception.

6 Likes

Alas, in geology, you can throw out radiometric dating and all that, and just look at the rocks to show the earth is ancient. dating only helps define how ancient. My rock, found in the north of mid America had to have grown in a shallow tropical sea. It would then have to have been covered with sediment to form the limestone formation, that sediment being the exoskeletons of tiny marine organisms, with layers of shale in that formation also showing the rise and fall of sea levels during that period. Then, the continent would have to have


drifted north to a less tropical location, as well as lifted to an elevation of over 600 ft above sea level. Then, during an ice age, glaciers scraped and broke the limestone apart, where the remnants were now rounded by lake waters to be found by the shore. There is simply not enough time for that to have happened in a YEC timeline, by any stretch of the imagination.

5 Likes

You’ll notice that false prophets in scripture are never condemned for talking about views of creation that differ from a literal interpretation of scripture. Those condemning false prophets seem to be more concerned about false prophets telling people to worship idols and false gods. It could be argued that an over-emphasis on a particular interpretation of Genesis could be a form of idolatry. I am not saying that YECs are committing idolatry or that YECs are a threat to the faith, but it is, what I consider, the false belief that you have to choose between the Bible and what science has revealed about the history of life which has led many to leave the faith. The accusation could go both ways.

2 Likes

No there are some inconsistencies in your understanding of the process.

Are you really serious???

2 Likes

Hi Ron,
yes, of course, I would expect that you cannot accept this reality, because it is completely counter to what you honestly believe in your overall worldview.

We will just have to agree that we disagree.

I suggest we watch this space, ALL of us.

It seems to me that there is a considerable possibility that just as the first finds of ‘soft tissue remnants’ discovered in dinosaur bone, both mineralised and unpermineralised, were shouted from the rooftops to be impossible, to be contamination etc. etc… by some people that adhere to firm belief in ‘deep time’ and ‘evolution’, I suspect it may turn out to be the same with 14C in diamonds, as more diamond samples are tested in reputable analytical laboratories around the world, that are categorically found to contain intrinsic 14C.

God Bless,
jon

I think it’s probably worth giving a refresher, for the benefit of @adamjedgar and @Burrawang and anyone else who might stumble on this thread, on the basic rules and principles of how measurement actually works.

In any serious physics, chemistry or engineering course, the very first thing that you learn in the very first practical class is that every measurement comes with uncertainty, and that uncertainty must be quantified. It’s not good enough to say that a measurement is “unreliable”; you have to quantify exactly how unreliable it is. There is a massive difference between “occasionally out by up to 20%” and “consistently out by a factor of a million.”

There are two forms of error that might creep into a measurement: random errors and systematic errors.

Random errors are unpredictable fluctuations that may affect the result in either direction. They may come from counting statistics, or tiny electrical instabilities in detectors, or contamination and leakage when both are at play. They make repeated measurements scatter around the true value. We can reduce them by repeating the measurement multiple time, and there are formulae that allow us to quantify them. The overall spread of the measurements is given by the standard deviation:

\sigma = \sqrt{\frac{1}{n-1} \sum_{i=1}^n (x_i - \bar{x})^2}

and the size of the uncertainty in the true value is given by the standard error of the mean:

\text{SEM} = \frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{n}}

Systematic errors are biases that push all measurements in the same direction. Examples include miscalibrated instruments, contamination from sample preparation, and the like. These do not cancel each other out, so we have to hunt them down through calibration and control experiments.

The extent of a systematic error can depend on a lot of different factors. More complex sample preparation with a greater number of steps will introduce larger errors, and more porous or reactive samples will more readily introduce errors from the environment than harder, more impermeable crystals. This is why we would expect graphite to have a greater propensity for contamination than diamonds, for example.

Considering the possibility of errors is standard practice in every area of science, whether “operational” or “historical.” This is nothing whatsoever to do with “differing worldviews”; it is something that applies to Christians and secularists alike, irrespective of how old the Earth is or who or what did or did not evolve from what. When young earthists dismiss contamination as a “rescuing device” or “explaining away,” or claim that it’s just a “different worldview,” they are demanding that the most basic and fundamental rules of accurate and honest measurement should not apply to them. And as I’ve said before, I’m sorry, but they do.

3 Likes

Hi Adam,
yes, I would have to agree with everything you have written on this post #72.
Furthermore, I am just a blow in, unfortunately, I do not have the time to invest in staying with this site for long periods of time, I have other responsibilities to attend to. But I see that you are faithfully here each time I briefly join the discussion here.

I think I understand at least to some small degree, where the people of this Biologos forum are coming from, as I too once believed that God used evolution over billions of years as His method of creating. Praise the Lord, that He opened my eyes to the reality revealed in His creation and in the Holy Bible.

Although I am not SDA, my grandchildren attend an SDA school and I have been to some events at the school and see the genuine love for the Lord there.
I understand that many people here are not against but are for the Lord Jesus, and I hope that anything I have written does not hurt anyone; my motives are only that the Truth be known by all.
Where there are false teachings, they must be exposed so that more generations aren’t deceived.

Yes, as you have correctly stated, the doctrines and theology promoted by Biologos are NOT supported by the Holy Bible and I see that you are right that there are many highly intelligent people here that can see that.

I have many other responsibilities that I must attend to and so reluctantly I will have to leave this forum and attend to them. I pray that you are strengthened in love, faith and wisdom.

Your brother in Jesus Christ our Lord,
jon

Note also that the coral in the photo is a rugosan coral. Coral reefs around the world were made by totally different kinds of corals before the Permo-Triassic extinction. No reef could form during a violent global flood of the sort imagined by modern flood geology (as Kurt Wise has admitted), yet there are reefs formed by various types of organism found through most of the Phanerozoic.

On carbon-14: Trace amounts of carbon-14 may be present in diamonds (and practically anywhere else) due to radiation from the decay of nearby radioactive atoms; the amount might not be absolutely zero. But there is no evidence of meaningful amounts of carbon-14 in diamonds. Suppose I have an hourglass that takes 10 minutes for the sand to drain out, and I use that to time baking some biscuits. Two hours later, the kitchen is full of smoke but I insist that the time can’t be up because there’s one sand grain sticking to the top part of the timer. I’m not going to be very successful at suing the manufacturer of the hourglass.

Carbon-14 is in the air and in us, among other things that contact the sample. Trying to obtain a carbon date involves getting as clean a sample as possible, but you can’t prevent all contact with air. For average samples, anything beyond about 20,000 years is maxing out; extremely clean samples might be pushed to around 50-60,000 years. The amount of 14C is so low in anything that old that a trace of contamination will throw it off. The actual study makes it clear that they were testing how close to zero they could measure.

Carbon-14 dating provides excellent support for the historical accuracy of the Bible. While it demonstrates that the young-earth interpretation is wrong, it shows good archaeological matching from Abraham’s day onward. (Before Abraham, the Bible doesn’t give enough detail to have anything specific for the archaeologist to look for.) Although there’s no specific archaeological evidence of Abe himself, the geopolitical and cultural setting is recognizably that of the first quarter or so of the second millennium BC. Carbon dating confirms that major building happened in Israel during the united monarchy and that Hezekiah’s tunnel dates to Hezekiah’s time. It also shows that some crank misinterpretations of the sectarian accounts in the Dead Sea Scrolls are wrong. Besides biblical texts, a variety of other writings are present. The sect looked back to their founding by the Teacher of Righteousness, who retreated into the wilderness with his followers due to opposition from the Wicked Priest. Unreasonable claims that the Wicked Priest was Paul, Jesus, or some other figure from early Christianity have gotten some pop publicity. But scrolls referring to the conflict between the two date to before 100 BC. Although exact identification is uncertain, the Wicked Priest was a figure from Seleucid to Maccabean time.

Radioactive decay rates reflect extremely fundamental physics. One type of decay happens when an electron is captured by the nucleus. Not surprisingly, the likelihood of capturing an electron is related to the likelihood of an electron getting close. In turn, as electrons are involved in chemical reactions, there is a tiny variation in the rate of electron capture decay because of the chemical setting of the atom. But electron capture decay is not used for dating. Any significant change in decay rates would make the existence of atoms impossible. You can’t just mess with a physics constant because you don’t like its implications. Decay rates occurring in distant supernovae match what we measure in the lab today. The polonium halo argument used by young-earthers requires the decay rates to be unchanged. (It also requires a lack of contamination, which is not true for the relevant rocks, and has a few other problems, but it’s an example of inconsistency in young-earth claims about decay rates.) In fission-track dating, you count the number of holes made in a crystal by the decay of radioactive atoms - no assumptions about the amount of parent and daughter isotopes.

One process that does affect the decay rate is if enough radiation is around to trigger a nuclear reaction - nuclear reactors and nuclear bombs. But for them to work properly and not have one unexpectedly turning into the other requires the underlying laws of physics to be unchanged. And we have geologically ancient nuclear reactors that show unchanged laws of physics applying to them relative to today. It’s not ancient aliens nonsense, but rather happening naturally in rocks. Near Oklo, in Gabon, uranium mining turned up isotopes similar to the output of a nuclear reactor. Enough uranium was naturally present (having had a couple billion years less decay time) to create a natural breeder reactor.

Carbon dating matches up with patterns from cycles in earth’s orbit (Milankovitch cycles), counting growth rings in trees, counting layers in glacier ice, counting lake bed layers, counting layers in cave formations, historical records, accumulated radiation effects on other minerals, rate of change in amino acid structure, and many other lines of evidence.

Answers in Genesis is merely misrepresenting the results of the experiment to fool people into mistrusting science and believing them instead. Galatians makes it clear that anyone who teaches that you need something besides the work of Jesus to save you is a false teacher. That’s a problem for people who claim that you need creation science to be saved.

5 Likes

This is talking about spiritual death or separation from God. All physically die whether they believe in Christ or not. He died in our place so we can be in His presence. Plant cells are very similar to animal cells (with a few small differences) so it would be strange to suggest that animal death is the result of corruption from sin, but plant death is not. While plants are not considered ‘nephesh’, both humans and animals are. Animals do not need to be saved from the wages of sin, but humans who are being made in God’s image, made spiritually alive do.

  • Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

So it can’t be physical death that entered the world through Adam. Adam did not “surely die” but was spiritually separated from God and sent out of the Garden which represents God’s presence.

But Paul does not specifically say that Adam was historic or a literal person. That is your belief, and would be Paul’s as well, but Paul does not specifically claim that because it is not pertinent to the faith. Paul instead describes Adam as a ‘figure’ and his sin as a ‘similitude’. So Adam represents all humanity and his sin represents all sin.

The first literal, historic person in the Bible is Abraham. Scientifically, the way speciation occurs is with a long separation from the main population. This happens to Abram who is called out from his kindred. This is an act of creation by the Word of the Lord:

  • Gen 12:1 Now the Lord had said to Abram: “Get out of your country, from your family and from your father’s house, to a land that I will show you.

The land he was sent out from was Ur of the Chaldeans, and sent to Canaan.

Ur means “light” and Chaldea means “breast, or protecting spirit”

Canaan means “humbled or subdued”

It doesn’t seem that Abraham was sent somewhere better than where he was, but is similar to how Adam was sent out of the Garden. Abraham was sent out of a safe, protected space to be tested for a higher calling.

That may be your impression but is it true?
As I see it, the YEC explanations I have heard are based on a frame of interpretation that is theologically weak. There are several points that seem to omit the basic rules of the exegesis of biblical scriptures.

First, there seems to be an assumption that the biblical scriptures were written to the modern humans. Some claims may even give the impression that the scriptures were written to an English-speaking modern human. If the scriptures were written to modern humans, the original receivers would not have understood the messages, or in the best case, would have misunderstood the messages. Did God intend to communicate with the original receivers? If not, that would paint a strange image of God.

Second, context is one of the keywords in faithful exegesis of the scriptures. Context plays an important role in theological discussions about the best interpretation, except in the YEC frame. Context is rarely taken into account in YEC claims, except in the sense that is called ‘cross.referencing’ - if the matter is mentioned in another biblical scripture, that is taken as an evidence that ‘the Bible’ supports YEC interpretations.

Third, biblical scriptures tell about God, His plan and will. In this sense, they are texts with religious/spiritual messages. YEC interpretations reduce the biblical scriptures to a modern textbook of history and science. By doing that, much of the original messages are lost and replaced with less important topics.

Fourth, biblical scriptures paint a picture of God that is faithful and truthful. There are rare cases where God lets a deceitful spirit to mislead the so called prophets but generally, God does not lie. Yet, some YEC claims paint a picture of God that continuously lies. Light does not originate from distant galaxies, God just made the light to look like the universe was very old. Geology cannot tell about an ancient Earth, God just made everything look like the Earth was ancient. etc. One piece of interpretation (doctrine) has become the master key to all interpretation, everything else needs to be explained so that it supports the key interpretation. If that cannot be done, then YEC-supporters draw the miracle card in the sense that God just made everything to look different from the YEC interpretation to deceive people.

I could continue but I guess these points tell why I do not support anymore YEC theology.

We could discuss passages or verses in some biblical scripture, one by one, but the problem with this is that the one master key of interpretation (doctrine) colors or even twists all the interpretations made by those trying to advance the YEC doctrine. Any other interpretations are strongly rejected. That makes fruitful study of the passages/verses difficult or sometimes even impossible - any competing interpretations are treated as the voice of false prophets that need to be rejected.

4 Likes

That’s nonsense. I challenge you to put forward a YEC argument for a young Earth or a recent global flood that does not use uniformitarianism. I am pretty confident you can’t do it.

1 Like

At least, I’d like to see the calibration curves for their measurements and how the lines go nuts around 4-5k years ago. Also, to make a positive case and theoretic for the work.

I think the people associated with the New Creation group are sort of trying and seem willing to evaluate and criticize current theories within YEC, even if not willing to question belief in YEC, itself.

1 Like

This only makes sense if it is possible for YECs to describe the characteristics a geologic formation would need in order to be inconsistent with a recent global flood and a young Earth.

How is YEC falsifiable? What features would a geologic formation need in order to falsify YEC? What criteria do you use to determine if a geologic formation is consistent with YEC models?

2 Likes

But it’s not, except in volume.

Balance in arguments requires qualitative similarities in rigor, information and reasoning.

I will grant you rigor in Bible study, Adam. You clearly study the Bible and SDA theology rigorously. You know your cross-referencing system and SDA theology backwards and forwards.

You haven’t applied that rigor to studying the natural sciences, though, although you keep claiming they are wrong.

The information you keep repeating from YEC sources has been demonstrated over and over again to be false. It doesn’t pass the test. Continuing to heap it up and insist that it’s true doesn’t provide balance. It makes you, as well as everything you say is important, look dubious.

Your reasoning does not provide balance. “Because Adam…” is not a valid argument against carbon-dating, evolution or anything else. You can’t test a theological statement in a lab, and you can’t understand the observable layering of sedimentary rock and fossils with biblical cross-referencing.

People who have real, hard questions about faith in God in the midst of a scientific age need a better, honest discussion about their concerns. In this forum, you focus much energy on providing an apologetic for YEC in order to provide a faulty defense of Christianity. This doesn’t provide balance.

It makes Christianity look dishonest.

2 Likes

There are YEC scientists that will say there are hard problems for YEC and that the data doesn’t strongly point to YEC in geology, physics and biology (for the latter, see Todd Wood’s commentary in series of blog posts)

1 Like

Hi All,
thank you for your thoughts, beliefs and considered responses, it is greatly appreciated!

I only have only a few minutes available now, but have all of you on my heart.
A brief article about the ‘Big Picture’ reality that’s titled:

Why would Christians be hostile to biblical creation?

is at:
https://creation.com/christian-hostility-biblical-creation?utm_campaign=the_creation_daily&utm_content=Christian%20hostility%20biblical%20creation&utm_medium=email&utm_source=mailing.creation.com&utm_term=The%20Creation%20Daily%20-%20AU%20-%20August%2013%2C%202025
I think this article is relevant to all, that is, both those that believe in ‘Deep Time’ and ‘Evolution’, and those that believe in ‘Biblical Creation’.

The one thing that stands out to me, is the potential for considerable damage to occur in ‘CHRISTIAN’ credibility that never ending debating over who is right is doing to those that do not know the Lord Jesus. It reminds me of the divide between the Pharisees and the Sadducees in the Holy Bible.

I pray that we can ALL be a unified witness for the Love, the Truth and the Salvation that with infinite Grace, our Loving Lord provides for us all, in this present world where Love is rapidly growing cold.

God Bless,
jon

It is not a matter of hostility.

Why would Christians want to understand nature?
Why would Christians have integrity?

1 Like