Let’s say that we agreed that the world could not be older than 60 million years, due to the measureable natural processes. Imagine now someone trying to postulate that we were all created by an evolutionary process involving random mutations and natural selection. Imagine the difficulty of the mathematics of that, given the millions of centuries required for the microbes to marmot pathway. The next question would have to be, if not unhindered evolution, then what? What mechanism or pathway was the one that God would have used if he only had 60 million years (or one million years) to do it? It reframes the discussion entirely.
Of course, disproving evolution does not prove Genesis 1 as a 6000 yr old earth. No one could really prove that even before evolution became a predominant theory. But it certainly discredits evolutionary criticisms of scripture.
The problems with evolution, is that it reduces the symbolism of Genesis 1 and 2 to absurdity. On the other hand, even a one million year scenario would enable the allegory and symbolism of Genesis 1 to work, because it could not be by an undirected random process that man came to be. Furthermore, from a scientific perspective, it would provide a new framework in which to understand radiometric dating of all kinds, including C14 or K-Ar or U-Th or any other. It would remove the justification for simplistic assumptions about initial conditions, and might help us to understand what are presently radiometric anomalies.
This misses the point. We are not talking about accuracy here, such as a 99% or 95% confidence level. We are talking about something entirely different. We are not arguing about whether the level of C14 found in coal is exactly the same all the time, or whether each measurement is entirely accurate, but rather that each measurement actually finds some of it there, in an amount that is more than background.
The first link is mainly historical background. The real “meat” of his argument comes in the second and third links, where he examines each of the inputs and outputs in some detail. In a nutshell, he cites more recent studies to show that their figures are based on outdated research and aren’t as generous as they claim to have been, having favoured high-end estimates.
I’d need to do a literature search to see whether this is justified, but even if it isn’t, the fact still remains that we don’t know how widely the rates of inflow and outflow of salt in the oceans have varied historically, nor do we know whether the current rates are typical or not. It simply isn’t good enough to make hand-waving statements such as “salt equations are probably in the same error range”—you have to come up with a solid theoretical and observational justification for your error range.
Assuming Snelling, Austin and Humphreys have their figures correct, could modern rates be higher than long-term historical averages by a factor of four, which would balance inputs and outputs? It’s quite possible—widespread farming and deforestation would certainly push up the rate significantly. Or could the Messinian Salinity Crisis—when the Mediterranean repeatedly dried up, sucking out massive quantities of salt from the oceans—account for the shortfall? That’s quite possible too. On the other hand, maybe these factors were insufficient as well. We just don’t know, and that being the case, we can’t draw any conclusions at all about the age of the earth from the amount of salt in the sea.
I’d just like to make it clear that I’m not trying to argue one way or another about the age of the earth. I’m just trying to illustrate the standards that have to be met by anything being presented as “scientific evidence.” If there are YEC claims that meet these standards, then I’d love to hear about them, but unfortunately the amount of salt in the sea isn’t one of them.
Wrong question. The heading to this thread is, “Objections to vast ages of earth.” The 101 objections are not primarily a defense of 6000 yr old earth, but rather an objection to the vast ages. A prime example is the requirement for 62 my for salt accumulation. This is not a defense of 6000 yrs, but an objection to the 4.5 billion years.
In plain english, for stuff that is dated as millions of years old, C14 should not be present. You draw the conclusions.
I would suggest that these things are measureable. If the Mediterranean sucked out massive quantities of salt, this would be measureable and quantifiable, within reasonable min and max. If the salt went back into the ocean again, then it is not particularly pertinent. If it did not go back into the ocean, then where is it, how much is there, and how does it compare to total volume of salt in the ocean. It will be either one or the other, or a combination of both. So we can draw conclusions.
The ocean generally has a salt content of 35 ppt, while the mediterranean has 38 ppt, a significant but small difference.
its not the person but the method itself . this is the problem. so again- according to your definition its not a scientific method because it can be wrong in a very large factor. see here for example:
There are huge halite (salt) deposits at the bottom of the Mediterranean, as well as other deposits elsewhere. Hay et al (2006) estimate that the total global inventory of halite deposits is about 32×1018 kg, three times greater than the 1984 estimate used by Austin and Humphreys.
So yes, this is measurable, but it is just one of several pertinent factors. The fact remains that the uncertainties and variabilities of some of the other factors are huge—far, far too large to allow us to use salinity to draw any meaningful conclusions about the age of the oceans.
This is correct. However, contamination needs to be ruled out, and this can only be done by peer review of the study and replication of the published results by other independent experts in the field. Has this been done?
I do not understand why one would object to the old age of our universe. It is true that Father God through the eternal Son pre-incarnate could have used any means to create everything including YEC; however the scientific evidence seems to point to an ancient creation.
Precisely. There are several indications in the Bible that the earth is not necessarily six thousand years old. For starters, 2 Peter 3:8 and Psalm 90:4 both tell us that a day with the Lord is like a thousand years and a thousand years are like a day. Both these verses come in passages that talk about creation, among other things. Psalm 90 was written by the same author as Genesis 1 (Moses); furthermore, 2 Peter 3:8 is specifically an answer to people who would use uniformitarian arguments to mock the Christian message. Additionally, the Hebrew word for a day (yom) in Genesis 1 can also be translated as an extended period of time; YEC objections to this claim (“yom with a number”) have no precedent prior to the 1970s nor have they any precedent outside of YEC literature. As for pedantic arguments about the genealogies, Titus 3:9 tells us that’s a foolish controversy and unprofitable.
The Bible also indicates that we are to take scientific evidence seriously. Psalm 19:1 tells us that the heavens declare the glory of God and the skies proclaim the works of His hands. Psalm 111:2 (which is written above the entrance to the Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge) says “The works of the LORD are great, sought out of all them that have pleasure therein.” Romans 1:20 tells us that God’s eternal power has been seen from what has been made. Furthermore, Romans 13:1-7 tells us that we are to submit to the governing authorities – in the case of science, that is the peer review process mediated by reputable scientific journals.
Peer review cannot rule out contamination, except only by inference. The procedures were done by independant labs who do thousands of samples. The detail of the procedures is clear about eliminating contamination.
The point is whether the various methods differ or corroborate each other. If in a number of demonstrable cases, the methods do not reasonably match, then it causes doubt about the reliability of one of the methods. In this case, if the C14 is more reliable because it is “younger aged correlation”, then the other methods become suspect. If samples contain enough C14 to place them at the 80,000 year range, when other methods are giving them a 250 my age, the question would be, what about those that have no C14… could they be incorrectly dated at 250 my, and instead, following a C14 trajectory, more likely be about 200,000 years old. Of course, the YEC would say that all these dates are too old, but, using the old age scenario, how do we deal with these non-corresponding methods. In some other cases, radiometric dating has varied between methods by billions of years. It would seem that when they do corroborate, perhaps it is merely coincidence. How do we know that it is not?
This is correct. Peer review is not sufficient to guarantee that a study is free of error. However, it is necessary.
Peer review gives an opportunity for both the methodology (including sample selection, storage and preparation prior to analysis) and interpretation of the results to be scrutinised, and flaws corrected to the satisfaction of the reviewer. However, it does not indicate whether the study was carried out as described in the report (or even in the lab notes) or whether mistakes were made, whether unintentionally or otherwise. For that reason, the study must be reproducible: other independent teams need to replicate the results. Again, this may or may not be sufficient to establish the claim being made, but it is necessary.
Here’s a review of the RATE research on radiocarbon in diamonds and coals etc. The author (who is an expert in radiocarbon AMS, as well as an evangelical Christian and a lay preacher in his local church) has highlighted several specific flaws in their methodology and interpretation of the results, and also points to other studies which contradict the RATE findings.
I generally agree with @Eddie that this conversation is really not about Earth being 6,000 years old - the case is very very far from being made that all current dating mechanisms yielding older dates are so grossly incorrect. As such, I see this conversation more like another way to show exactly how CMI consistently manipulates and misrepresents the data to make claims that are not supported by data nor generally accepted outside their own “bubble”.
If the conversation is to be about the technical details of dating methods then it is imperative to support all claims with primary references to the literature. Otherwise the conversation quickly degenerates into an unproductive “he said, she said” and “I choose to believe this person”, most likely because the person is saying what the reader wants to hear. While this type of conversation might be entertaining to some, it will not result in any productive clarification of the underlying issues.
Now, it would seem to me that most, if not all, “counterexamples” mentioned on this thread where C14 was supposedly found where it shouldn’t, it was a situation where the measured amounts were so small as to always be on limit of the C14 dating range. If this is an incorrect statement then please provide primary references to studies where this is not the case.
As is to be expected, measurements near the limit of the range of any analytical method will see measurement error rates and relative influence of noise increase as the method approaches its analytical limits. In Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS, the commonly used analytical method for C14 dating), this limit of detection for the top of the dating range corresponds to measurements of vanishing amounts of C14. As such, for samples with no C14 the instrument should be measuring zero ion counts but may instead return some minuscule near-zero ions counts - something that is to be expected since any noise or interference can only cause the measurements to go to non-zero. If you really wish to establish that near-zero AMS measurements of C14 are not noise nor interference (such as considered by Nichol et al Radiocarbon 2001 and Plastino et al Radiocarbon 2001) then you need to provide the primary references showing that the appropriate controls and statistics were used to firmly support such claims against overwhelming counter-evidence in the literature.
People want certain methods to be accepted as gospel truth. Most of these methods, actually all of them, have certain assumptions built in. Measuring is not the problem, but postulating expectations is a different thing. Some of these methods are reliable to a certain degree within know history, ie. C14. But even that method had to be adjusted for known nuclear events, since those events had an impact on the rates. With C14, we know for a fact that certain things could impact the dating conclusions, because it is based on original atmospheric ratios, as well as global atmospheric percentages. If we don’t know for certain what these were in the past, then the method loses reliability outside of recorded history.
Some of the radio active methods have given wildly discordant dates for similar material, dates that vary by billions of years. Certain components in some rocks have been dated at different dates than other components, so then it becomes more and more arbitrary as to which dates to use. So I do not find that reliable.
There are other viable explanations for ice cores and sedimentation rates which are alternative to the unrealisitc idea that nothing ever changed in the climate for hundreds of thousands of years. The observed rate for ice formation, is not consistent with the hypothesized scenario for ice cores. Density for ice does not fit with the layering of ice cores. So yes, ice cores are definately not copacetic, based on the relevant information we have.
Do you know roughly what percentage of dating results give discordant dates, and are these discordances evident for all dating methods or just some of them?
If discordance is very common, to the extent that it’s difficult to find rocks where different methods give the same result, then yes, the methods used will be unreliable.
However, if discordance is the exception rather than the rule, or only shows up with some methods and some kinds of minerals and not others, then that argument becomes far less convincing: this merely indicates that the underlying assumptions are valid most of the time, or hold up in certain conditions but not others.
Also how large are the discordances? I believe the RATE team reported just 20%—is this really enough to justify claims that isochron dates can be in error by six orders of magnitude? If so, how?
If isochron dates really are meaningless, then we would expect discordance between different methods to be overwhelmingly the norm, and concordance to be quite rare. In fact, we would expect the overwhelming majority of samples not to give an isochron result at all, because isochron dating is in itself a test of concordance.