Can a literal Genesis creation story really hold up?

[Ouroboros]

As to the age of bones, scientific dating is speculative and unreliable past just a few thousand years, IMO.

There are over 50 different methods. Some of them are radioactive. Some chemical. Some basic physics, using geological facts and simple math. And even other methods relating to well known processes of biological nature (like tree rings). And they all say the same things... how can all of them be wrong together and give the same wrong answers?

The only "speculative" nature of some of the methods are that they sometimes can give false readings based on the environment they're in. For instance, the challenge with radiometric dating is to know how much of the isotope was in the sample when the decay started, but luckily, there are ways of figure that out within certain margins of errors. Carbon dating for instance, there's only a limited amount of C12 and C14 in a sample. There can't be more than it is, and in face, if the samples were any younger (like 6,000 years), there would be plenty of C14 left in the sample, and there isn't. When C14 is gone, it must be older than some 50,000 years, because that's how long it takes for most of it to decay. Unless you have some clever explanation to how C14 disappeared (or actually decayed to C12) happened faster against all our current (and well established) science, but there is none.

 

[metis]

JS and Avi, thanks for your comments.

To clarify, when dating is done, it's always give in terms of the degree of error being 10% or less. Unfortunately, I'm not computer savvy enough to show you how it's actually written but I can pretty much duplicate it this way with a hypothetical object that roughly 10,000 b.p.: 10,000 + or - 1000. So, there's at least a 90% chance it's between 9000 and 11,000 b.p.

This degree of error isn't because there's that much error in the actual technique as it is that we generally speaking cannot date the object directly but indirectly. IOW, we have to find somethings at around the same strata just below and above it to give us that bracket of dates. As anthropologists, we don't do that because that's not our area of expertise, so we ship it out to those who specialize in such.

 

[Ouroboros]

Interesting point, Metis. I think some of the half lives go out to tens or even hundreds of thousands of years. Of course there is still uncertainty in the measurements, just like all measurements, there are issues of accuracy and precision.

If I remember right, carbon dating can only be used for samples within 50,000 years, but many other methods use isotopes with longer half-life. The problem is rather the margin of error. They can give a ballpark for the date. They're not some exact digital metronomes that someone clicked on simply because it's hard to determine the exact initial moles, another is how exact we can actually measure things. When a dating method gives, let's say 1,000,000 years date, it doesn't mean exactly the sample started to decay 1st of January in 1,000,000 BCE. There's a +/- x error. The error however is not 994,000 years for that one, and billion years error on the older samples. In other words, the error is not great enough to bring any of these dating methods to a 6,000 year old Earth. And using many other methods (not all of them using radiometric) the tests are refined and improved. For instance, there are methods to date our planet testing changes of magnetism in the seafloor. All methods show that Earth is very old. No method is exact, but they give us a fairly decent estimate. But since there's always a chance of error, there's always margin for correction.

 

[metis]

If I remember right, carbon dating can only be used for samples within 50,000 years, but many other methods use isotopes with longer half-life. The problem is rather the margin of error. They can give a ballpark for the date...

Carbon 14 dating is somewhat more variable because the amount of radioactive carbon is not a constant, so it has to be adjusted, often by using tree rings.

 

[Ouroboros]

JS and Avi, thanks for your comments.

To clarify, when dating is done, it's always give in terms of the degree of error being 10% or less. Unfortunately, I'm not computer savvy enough to show you how it's actually written but I can pretty much duplicate it this way with a hypothetical object that roughly 10,000 b.p.: 10,000 + or - 1000. So, there's at least a 90% chance it's between 9000 and 11,000 b.p.

This degree of error isn't because there's that much error in the actual technique as it is that we generally speaking cannot date the object directly but indirectly. IOW, we have to find somethings at around the same strata just below and above it to give us that bracket of dates. As anthropologists, we don't do that because that's not our area of expertise, so we ship it out to those who specialize in such.

Right. And to add a little:
Some methods test the biological sample. Some the soil around it. Some the time for the layers to build (like in lakes). Some magnetism. Then there are chemical methods and so on. They all can't lie to the same magnitude. If method A says 1,000,000 years and method B says 990,000, and both have an error of +/-5%, it can't be used to reason for 6,000 years date.

 

[metis]

Right. And to add a little:
Some methods test the biological sample. Some the soil around it. Some the time for the layers to build (like in lakes). Some magnetism. Then there are chemical methods and so on. They all can't lie to the same magnitude. If method A says 1,000,000 years and method B says 990,000, and both have an error of +/-5%, it can't be used to reason for 6,000 years date.

Good point. BTW, I only know the general process, so any details you can supply does help me to better understand how they do this.

 

[Ouroboros]

Carbon 14 dating is somewhat more variable because the amount of radioactive carbon is not a constant, so it has to be adjusted, often by using tree rings.

Yeah. I know. Or other methods since tree rings only go back 12,000 years. (which is funny, because the gospel of trees tells us that the world is older than Ussher thought. All this young Earth crap really comes from a monk 400 years ago calculating the age based on the "begat"-s in the Bible.

I read somewhere that it's common (you can correct me on this if I'm wrong) to use at least 3 different methods if possible when dating a fossil.

 

[metis]

Yeah. I know. Or other methods since tree rings only go back 12,000 years. (which is funny, because the gospel of trees tells us that the world is older than Ussher thought. All this young Earth crap really comes from a monk 400 years ago calculating the age based on the "begat"-s in the Bible.

I read somewhere that it's common (you can correct me on this if I'm wrong) to use at least 3 different methods if possible when dating a fossil.

I know that they try to use as many techniques as possible, but I honestly don't know about 3, but you might well be right. Dating involves time and money, so there has to be at least some limitation as to how far they can take it.

 

[Ouroboros]

Good point. BTW, I only know the general process, so any details you can supply does help me to better understand how they do this.

About C14? Or radio decay in general?

 

[Ouroboros]

I know that they try to use as many techniques as possible, but I honestly don't know about 3, but you might well be right. Dating involves time and money, so there has to be at least some limitation as to how far they can take it.

Right.

I can't remember where I saw it, perhaps it was one of Dawkin's books. Not sure.

Sometimes carbon dating can be completely wrong. And this is known. We can't trust C14 dating completely because the influence from the environment is too great. But when the parameters are right, it's estimate is fairly accurate. Besides, it only works for anything up to 50,000 years back.

And you're point before that if we didn't know how these things worked, we wouldn't be able to build reactors is a very good point. Actually, if radiometric dating is all wrong, we would have some serious problems in physics and geology. A huge amount of our understanding of nature would be completely wrong. And the math as well. It would be so wrong that I suspect the shroud of Turin would have to be made an hour ago if the error of measurement is so wrong. LOL!

 

[metis]

About C14? Or radio decay in general?

The half-life is known, but the rate which a life form absorbs is somewhat variable because of variable solar activity. At least that's how I understand it-- or I think I understand it. By using tree rings, they can measure the radiation level with each ring, plus use the rings to estimate growth rates that can relate to other factors.

 

[Ouroboros]

The half-life is known, but the rate which a life form absorbs is somewhat variable because of variable solar activity. At least that's how I understand it-- or I think I understand it.

Yeah. The ratio of C14/C12 in the atmosphere isn't exactly constant, and C12 is converted to C14 by the energy from the sun (if I remember correctly). And also, there are locations where there are much higher ratio of C14 than normal which results in readings like a million year old snail and such. But these environmental effects are known now. And those have to be accounted for whatever sample tested.

By using tree rings, they can measure the radiation level with each ring, plus use the rings to estimate growth rates that can relate to other factors.

Right. Also volcanic activity can be seen in the rings, like Krakatau and such.

Also, by using many different actual logs and comparing the rings by overlapping, we have essentially a continuous sequence of rings going back 12,000 years. It's basically impossible Earth is younger than that.

And SN1987A (supernova 1987, the first one observed in modern time using modern instruments) shows clearly that the universe cannot be younger than 150,000 years. We know it was an event that happened 150,000 years ago. It won't help to change the speed of light either to fix it, but that's another discussion.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Animals, unlike humans, were not created to live forever. (2 Peter 2:12) nor can anyone say with certainty what life was like for animals before man's fall into sin and death. The Bible does speak of a change in animals for the better that will come when God's will is carried out fully on earth. (Isaiah 11:6-9) As to the age of bones, scientific dating is speculative and unreliable past just a few thousand years, IMO.

Yeah as long as you acknowledge that it's just your opinion and not actual fact that's fine. Factually though the lives of animals have always been rather crappy. Before man.

 

[metis]

Yeah. The ratio of C14/C12 in the atmosphere isn't exactly constant, and C12 is converted to C14 by the energy from the sun (if I remember correctly). And also, there are locations where there are much higher ratio of C14 than normal which results in readings like a million year old snail and such. But these environmental effects are known now. And those have to be accounted for whatever sample tested.


Right. Also volcanic activity can be seen in the rings, like Krakatau and such.

Also, by using many different actual logs and comparing the rings by overlapping, we have essentially a continuous sequence of rings going back 12,000 years. It's basically impossible Earth is younger than that.

And SN1987A (supernova 1987, the first one observed in modern time using modern instruments) shows clearly that the universe cannot be younger than 150,000 years. We know it was an event that happened 150,000 years ago. It won't help to change the speed of light either to fix it, but that's another discussion.

Thanks for the above.

 

[Avi1001]

Yeah. The ratio of C14/C12 in the atmosphere isn't exactly constant, and C12 is converted to C14 by the energy from the sun (if I remember correctly). And also, there are locations where there are much higher ratio of C14 than normal which results in readings like a million year old snail and such. But these environmental effects are known now. And those have to be accounted for whatever sample tested.

Right. Also volcanic activity can be seen in the rings, like Krakatau and such.

Also, by using many different actual logs and comparing the rings by overlapping, we have essentially a continuous sequence of rings going back 12,000 years. It's basically impossible Earth is younger than that.

And SN1987A (supernova 1987, the first one observed in modern time using modern instruments) shows clearly that the universe cannot be younger than 150,000 years. We know it was an event that happened 150,000 years ago. It won't help to change the speed of light either to fix it, but that's another discussion.

Nice description of this technology. I'm pretty sure we will have to come back to it and apply it again to argue against some of the fundamentalist positions !

 

[greentwiga]

Actually, N14 is converted to C14 by solar radiation. One then needs to get a series of wood samples. When one compares two trees that died at different times, one can look for an overlap. if 1 represents a thin ring (Bad year) and 0 a fat ring, and one finds the sequence, 101001101110010001 in the outer part of one tree, and the same sequence, 101001101110010001 in the inner part of the other tree one can extend the time back farther. Scientists have series of trees that go from now back 10,000 years. From that, they generate wiggle graphs by analyzing the c14 in each ring. Instead of a straight slope as you go back in time, one get slight wiggles. Thus one C14 reading can point to 3 different years. Also, since it is a statistical process, one year is actually a range of years. The wiggle just makes it a wider range. One answer is to get a variety of samples and use Bayesian analysis to reduce the range. The used this recently for Egyptian Pharaohs, which helps date the Exodus.

Also, certain dates are very clear such as the eruption of Santorini, since the ring is so small.

In addition, the ring sequence in the Middle east is a floating one because there is trouble finding reliable wood from Roman times (ie prove it was not imported from another region.)

I am a fundamentalist, but love C14 dating.

 

[Avi1001]

I am a fundamentalist, but love C14 dating.

how old is the earth ?

 

[greentwiga]

It is not nice to ask a lady her age. Actually, we can only date points in the history/growth of the earth. One point is when the planetoid hit the earth creating the moon. Anyway, the age is in billions of years.

I am a fundamentalist. I believe that each and every word is true. I just don't accept the traditional interpretations. I read the Bible, and the traditional interpretation is frequently wrong. In other cases, if I see two possible and reasonable interpretations, the traditional and another that fits science, I choose the scientifically accurate one.

 

[Avi1001]

I just don't accept the traditional interpretations. I read the Bible, and the traditional interpretation is frequently wrong. In other cases, if I see two possible and reasonable interpretations, the traditional and another that fits science, I choose the scientifically accurate one.

I agree with this approach.

 

[outhouse]

The used this recently for Egyptian Pharaohs, which helps date the Exodus.

.

No credible scholar is even looking for evidence towards any exodus.

There are no credible dates given for any exodus.

According to Finkelstein it is factual that the Israelites slowly developed from displace Canaanites that filled the highlands after 1200 BC.


It is factual that there was no mass exodus, and that the villages in the highlands grew over a 200 year period.


These proto Israelites worshiped Canaanite deities ONLY and showed no real cultural traits of their own until after 1000 BC