Radioactive dating basics

[dad]

Dad,

Since you ask, my belief regarding the Bible is that an Old Earth Position is Biblical.

My position is very similar to what you will find in this article from the main board. You might find it helpful to refer to if you haven't already.

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html

OK, I call that stuff the compromise theories. Trying to make the bible fit science. But you are welcome to your beliefs.

In view of this, the geologic record doesn't represent a problem in my estimation because I do not believe the Bible makes any claim with regard to the age of the earth that science generally is in conflict with.

No problem for me either.

Please explain to me how you derive from the passage you quote that the Bible that the earth used to be watered by a mist that rose up. That seems to be a different claim that what you first stated that water arose from the subteranean.

Derive? It seems pretty plain the mist, hence moisture, or water came UP from below. In fact it even says it had never rained.

I know you'll disagree with my understanding of this passage, so just for the record, maybe you can explain if you disagree with Answers in Genesis' admonition in this arena and explain if you are in disagreement with other Young Earth Creationists in this regard.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... nt_use.asp

They say don't be dogmatic about that point. I guess I should admit I really don't know. Who does? But there was a mist in the very beginnining, this we know. No rain, this also we know. And, that there were vast waters under the earth, that the fountains of the deep brought up, that is certain. I think the aig folks are humming and hawing here, cause they assume that the past is phyics bound as well! I must confess, I don't know much about their site, or care! God bless them, A for effort, but they better get with the split, or face defeat, as I see it!

In terms of your trees growing in a week, it is one thing to claim this at the time of creation. Are you suggesting that based upon this passage that it is a direct teaching of Scripture or are you simply inferring this as a plausible explanation?

I think it is the way it was. Not only when the garden was planted, but in Noah's day!

Do you see the difference? Do you think there is any other possible explanation which would allow your inference to be wrong and Scripture still correct?

No. I think I got er nailed.

In terms of the ice cores. Are you suggesting that the ice layers formed at accelerated rates and matched the accelerated geological layers you claim?

Well, I would think the ice formed fast, and any patterns that seem similar to the column may have other explanations. After all, it was with the old age assumptions the cores were viewed. Time to look at things in a new light.

This would seem to be a necessary assertion on your part or else the markers found in these ice core samples which match up with the sediment layers in terms of volcanic ash from major erruptions, changes in earth's magnetism etc would not correlate.

Each thing needs looking at on it's own. Raise any point you like there. Give us your best shot, I'll have a go at it.

How is it that your interpretation of the Flood would account not only for advanced sediment layers in the ocean (tying them as you do on the premise that trees were grown in a week for example) would also account for ice accumulation at the same rate?

Can you show us some samples of what you are claiming? Like, a specific ocean sediment deposit. And a specific ice core that you feel line up?

Do you have any specifics or do you simply assert this as necessary based upon your understanding of Scripture?

Specifics of what, exactly?

Some sources and links would be nice if you have any, but if not, by all means let us hear you thoughts on this and why we should accept your feelings on the matter.

Great. What matter? Try to be less general. Consider this the mod school of hard knocks.

[Canuckster1127]

No Thanks Dad.

It's your responsibility to defend your position.

Anyone observing this thread can determine for themselves the value of your opinions and your ability to defend them.

When you're ready to defend, I'm sure you'll let us know.

In the meantime, I do hope you'll stick around. You're a wonderful example of the YEC position and it would be a shame to lose you.

[Felgar]

For YEC's, I think there are two main areas to focus on. The first is the cosmoligical timescale which estimates an approximately 13-15 Billion year-old universe, based on the distance to the stars, etc. (Personally I think the 13 Billion conclusion is a little weak and will need revision as new generations of telescopes open up new observations) So for now I think the 13B thing is kind of moot anyways.

However, the light-travel problem though is on an even smaller scale (100,000 years for our galaxy alone, and then we can easily see how far away other similar-sized galaxies are) which makes a 6000 year-old Solar System very, very unlikely. The only currently semi-plausible explanation is the whole 'white hole creation' theory and frankly to me it seems extremely contrived. As understanding progresses though, further evidences will either support it or refute it; as it is, the solution seems a lot like the old solar system models forcing the Earth to the middle (far too contrived to be taken seriously)

Then second area of focus would be what we see here on Earth. The ice cores, magentic pole switching, glacier movements, sedimentary deposits in lakes and oceans, etc all consistently point to a timescale at least on the order of 100,000 years. In my mind radiometric dating is the least reliable method of establishing age, and in particular Carbon dating the worst of them. It always seems the focus is on establishing decay rate, when in reality I have always had a far greater problem accepting the other assumption, which is that the sample was in a pure state when it was first formed. What solid support is there to show that only pure Carbon-14 is built up in organic matter? So my conclusion is that individual samples should be taken with a grain of salt. However when consistently, time and time again, many samples from all over all yield the same result then it's unlreastic to ignore the conclusion. Meteorites of various compositions, the oldest rocks on Earth, moon rocks, samples transferred from Mars, etc all pretty well say "4.5 Billion years." There comes a time when the evidence is overwhelming, and eventually it is necessary to bring one's head out of the sand.

Now having said all that, I find it frustrating that neither OEC or YEC's address 'Appearance of Age' with anything more than a hand-wave. To me the answer is obvious: God, transcending time, created the universe and the Earth in an old state. More specifically, God created the past and present (even future actually, as God's entire plan was already conceived, executed, and completed in God's eyes right at the moment of creation) in a single moment. So from a human-centric perspective and account of creation, we have 6000 years of history. From a scientific perspective the Earth and the universe are actually as old as the observations would support, because the science can only speak to the physical reality, which God made perfectly old in his infinite knowledge and wisdom. From God's perspective all of time (past and future) are a single continuum. We were placed onto that continuum 6000 years ago.

AIG's answer to Appearance of Age (or 'light on the way') is that we see not only light but X-rays, etc from supernovae and other cosmic events, as if that's any different than the light itself. To that I simply shrug as I see no difference. It is a seen as a deception when I don't see it that way at all. It is God creating for us a universe cable of support life which is then necessarily *physically* old (age being needed for life-supporting conditions). It's funny that both YEC and OEC seem to think that God creates a 'base form' and then nature must take its course. For OEC that base form is the light of the Big Bang, and for YEC that is the Earth with no sedimentary layers, or the moon with no craters. But for YEC esspecially this poses a big problem, because even a moon with no craters is not truly unformed, or young, or whatever you want to call it. Why? Because how old is it that it has already cooled from magma?

Also, a final note about Adam himself. A basic reading of Genesis shows both Adam and Eve formed in an aged state also (Eve being created an appropriate companion for Adam, and Adam naming all the animals in the first week). So if Adam can be created already old, why not the rest of the universe?

[dad]

No Thanks Dad.

It's your responsibility to defend your position.

.

You made some generalized comments, and can't step up to the plate. The different past handily explains all. For example, the OP, which is dating.
"An ice core is a core sample from the accumulation of snow and ice over many years that have recrystallized and have trapped air bubbles from previous time periods. The composition of these ice cores, especially the presence of hydrogen and oxygen isotopes, provides a picture of the climate at the time."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

Hey, it all goes in a circle with old agers. The isotopes again here are the big ticket for dating cores, mentioned in this article.

And etc. The emperor has no clothes, the bluff has been called. WE all can see now the tiny wizard behind the curtain, formerly thought so powerful.

[dad]

For YEC's, I think there are two main areas to focus on. The first is the cosmoligical timescale which estimates an approximately 13-15 Billion year-old universe, based on the distance to the stars, etc.

Absolute piece of cake. The different universe in the past had a different light. It got here almost right away. Distance in no way relates to age if the past was not the same! And it wasn't. And you can in no way show us it was.

Then second area of focus would be what we see here on Earth. The ice cores, magentic pole switching, glacier movements, sedimentary deposits in lakes and oceans, etc all consistently point to a timescale at least on the order of 100,000 years.

False, I have looked at it, and there is nothing at all to the dating, save assumptions of a same past. 6000 years, that is all.

In my mind radiometric dating is the least reliable method of establishing age, and in particular Carbon dating the worst of them. It always seems the focus is on establishing decay rate,

Ha, I love it. Distance yourselves, people from the old age star of the show, radioactive dating!

To me the answer is obvious: God, transcending time, created the universe and the Earth in an old state.

Ha. No, the split made it look old to people who assume the past was not different. That's all.

From a scientific perspective the Earth and the universe are actually as old as the observations would support, because the science can only speak to the physical reality, which God made perfectly old in his infinite knowledge and wisdom. From God's perspective all of time (past and future) are a single continuum. We were placed onto that continuum 6000 years ago.

We are close on this. It was 4400 years ago, at the split.

because even a moon with no craters is not truly unformed, or young, or whatever you want to call it. Why? Because how old is it that it has already cooled from magma?

Magma cooled in days before the split.

Also, a final note about Adam himself. A basic reading of Genesis shows both Adam and Eve formed in an aged state also (Eve being created an appropriate companion for Adam, and Adam naming all the animals in the first week). So if Adam can be created already old, why not the rest of the universe?

God planted the garden. A few days later we were in there eating the fruit off the trees. If the plants grew real fast, then there was no need to create anything old.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

God planted the garden. A few days later we were in there eating the fruit off the trees. If the plants grew real fast, then there was no need to create anything old.

Eat?

Who had time to eat?

They were too busy cutting their phenomenally fast growing hair.

[Canuckster1127]

No Thanks Dad.

It's your responsibility to defend your position.

.

You made some generalized comments, and can't step up to the plate. The different past handily explains all. For example, the OP, which is dating.
"An ice core is a core sample from the accumulation of snow and ice over many years that have recrystallized and have trapped air bubbles from previous time periods. The composition of these ice cores, especially the presence of hydrogen and oxygen isotopes, provides a picture of the climate at the time."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

Hey, it all goes in a circle with old agers. The isotopes again here are the big ticket for dating cores, mentioned in this article.

And etc. The emperor has no clothes, the bluff has been called. WE all can see now the tiny wizard behind the curtain, formerly thought so powerful.

Dad, I've come to the conclusion that you may be a sentient being from another planet interacting with our board telepathically.

Is there any reason you can offer why I should believe differently?

[Felgar]

In general I must say that I find your whole attitude quite distastefull and warranting only a terse response in-kind, rather than a thoughtful discussion of the complexities at play. As such..

False, I have looked at it, and there is nothing at all to the dating, save assumptions of a same past. 6000 years, that is all.

I direct you here,
http://cires.colorado.edu/science/group ... s_2001.pdf and from within I quote:

[pg 10]Formation of the Greenland ice sheet is dated as far back as 2.4 million years by ocean sediment layers of ice rafted debris. Ice at its base has been dated to older than 130,00 years [Dahl-Jensen et al., 1997] Layers are countable down to 90% of the depth or 110 thousand years before present.

So even accounting for possible errors in counting and trouble distinguishing layers, there's no possible way that 6000 years is reasonable. There are no assumptions being made here, as it is simply counting layers built up each season.

Maybe you're pre-split hyper-time conjecture will suffice to explain this away also, but there comes a point when a guy's just gotta sit back and say "what you talkin' 'bout Willis?"

God planted the garden. A few days later we were in there eating the fruit off the trees. If the plants grew real fast, then there was no need to create anything old.

I asked about Adam, not trees. Did Adam grow up in a few days? How big was Adam when God formed him from clay? How old did Adam appear when he was only alive for an hour? My question still stands: God demonstrates that he will create old things through Adam and Eve, on what grounds do you reject everything else being made old?

[Jbuza]

gone

[Jbuza]

gone

[Canuckster1127]

So even accounting for possible errors in counting and trouble distinguishing layers, there's no possible way that 6000 years is reasonable. There are no assumptions being made here, as it is simply counting layers built up each season.

Could you please demonstrate how we know each layer of compressed snow indicates a six month period of time? Apparently each snow event will become compressed. Please include these variables in your demonstration of the validity of your claims. Water content and amount of snow in a particular storm, amount of time exposed to the sun, amount of time before being covered by subsequent events, and Global climate fluctuations across months and centuries.

It's only fair then that your correspondingly demonstrate or propose how these layers formed otherwise and what would account for what has to be multiple layers and extreme depths if the earth is only 6,000 years old.

[Felgar]

Could you please demonstrate how we know each layer of compressed snow indicates a six month period of time? Apparently each snow event will become compressed. Please include these variables in your demonstration of the validity of your claims. Water content and amount of snow in a particular storm, amount of time exposed to the sun, amount of time before being covered by subsequent events, and Global climate fluctuations across months and centuries.

I'm not an ice core scientist for goodness sake but I'm sure the conclusions drawn are plausible and reasonable; certainly much more reasonable than some alternative hyper-time universe. The concepts are inherently intuitive... Contamination of the ice will occur in those periods where it is static (or melting) for a duration of timem, and thus a layer will be visible. Naturally, the very same patterns seen at lower depths tcorrespond exactly with patterns shown from the last 50 years which we can verify with actual observation. (only compressed by pressure which is also verifyable by experimentation)

If you really want to see for yourself, take a vacation and check them out. I'm sure there are samples available for viewing by an interested individual, regardless of whether he's a scientist by profession or not. Since you are the one contradicting the vast majority and the consensus here, the burden is upon to you to investigate and show how those conclusions are wrong.

Edit: And while we are at it, this is not the only layer sample able to be counted. Some old lake beds show multiple deposits of things inherently annual by nature (such as seeds) and can be counted also.

[Jbuza]

gone

[dad]

Eat?

Who had time to eat?

They were too busy cutting their phenomenally fast growing hair.

No, human growth was not fast as plant growth was. In fact we lived nearly ten centuries. Forever, before the fall.

[dad]

In general I must say that I find your whole attitude quite distastefull and warranting only a terse response in-kind, rather than a thoughtful discussion of the complexities at play. As such..

Sure, you really could give great answers, -right, you just aren't in the mood. Ha.

http://cires.colorado.edu/science/group ... s_2001.pdf and from within I quote:

[pg 10]Formation of the Greenland ice sheet is dated as far back as 2.4 million years by ocean sediment layers of ice rafted debris. Ice at its base has been dated to older than 130,00 years [Dahl-Jensen et al., 1997] Layers are countable down to 90% of the depth or 110 thousand years before present.

Are you joking? You offer up stale dry old age bread crusts, not really addressing the issues here? They date debris how? That is what you need to focus on, not reciting old age dates as if they meant the slightest thing in this world!

So even accounting for possible errors in counting and trouble distinguishing layers, there's no possible way that 6000 years is reasonable. There are no assumptions being made here, as it is simply counting layers built up each season.

Well, no, it is nothing of the sort.
"Greenland Climate Network (GC-Net) meteorological observations are used to estimate surface water
vapor exchanges at Greenland ice sheet sites and for the ice sheet as a whole for the period of mid 1995 to mid
2000. Water vapor fluxes were derived using aerodynamic profile methods and validated with eddy correlation
and evaporation pan measurements." (from your link)
So, we have a present observation here. How it works now. Fine.
Now, rather than offer a huge pdf, you need to post relevant things only from it. What addresses how things were built up in the rapid ice age? I must have missed that one. All I saw were silly same old same old old same assumptions the past was the same.

I asked about Adam, not trees. Did Adam grow up in a few days? How big was Adam when God formed him from clay? How old did Adam appear when he was only alive for an hour?

A fully grown man. But he wasn't planted, he was formed.

My question still stands: God demonstrates that he will create old things through Adam and Eve, on what grounds do you reject everything else being made old?

On the grounds it is utterly ridiculous. Do you really think He is a God that created dead fossils in the dirt? That is so pitiful.