Evidences given for a young-earth

[Audie]

Has our opster done a drive by?

 

[Kilk1]

Thanks, everyone, for the informative input! I'm not going to be able to directly reply to everything, but I'll do my best to get to some of them.

 

[Kilk1]

I suggest you start here: An Index to Creationist Claims

Specifically:

CC371: Tyrannosaurus blood

CC371.1: Tyrannosaurus tissues from bone

CE311: Faint young sun

CD011.6: C14 date of old oil

CD221.1: Amount of dissolved sodium in oceans

Then if you need further detail, you should read through the material cited in each of those responses.

Thanks! I'll try to check these out.

 

[Kilk1]

Radiocarbon dating is only just one among a number of different radiometric dating methods.

The limitations of C-14 datings are well known, so people studying paleontology, stratigraphy and other disciplines wouldn’t use it to date anything older than 58,000 years.

Have you ever heard of potassium-argon (K-Ar) dating and uranium-lead (U-Pb) dating methods. These two are the most commonly used to date rocks and rock minerals over 100,000 years. Their half-life differed depending on which isotopes being used to measure radio decays.

The K-Ar may have errors, but only with rocks would lose and regain argon isotopes that have been re-molten and re-crystallized, so U dating are preferred for any rock older than 2 million years old. But such events re-molten and re-crystallizing are not all that common with ancient stratas, and K-Ar method is only a problem with recent volcanic activities.

But despite this possible problem with K-Ar method, it is still preferred over for dating rocks older than 100,000 years, and U-Pb is even better and more reliable, and can date oldest minerals that as old as the age of the Earth.

Plus, more often than not, fossils are usually covered by sedimentary rocks than igneous rocks.

Radiocarbon is most useful dating the antiquities of the Neolithic period (11,000 to 3100 BCE in the Middle East), and of the Bronze Age and Iron Age civilizations.

The oldest layer of Jericho date as far back as 9700 BCE, predated the phony claim of the Earth being 6000 years old. Even the oldest layer of Uruk or Erech in most bible translations by 1000 years.

The claims in Genesis 10 that Nimrod was responsible for finding Uruk, Accad, Babylon, Nineveh and Calah is pure make-believe myth, because archaeological evidences, showed that Uruk, Babylon, Nineveh and Calah to be first constructed in very different times. Uruk was first constructed 7000 years ago (about 5000 BCE), while Calah or Kalhu as it is called in ancient Assyrian, is about 3200 years old, built by Shalmaneser I, around about 1270 BCE. So the mythological Nimrod couldn’t have built both Uruk and Kalhu.

In any case, the people from Answers in Genesis, are bunch of morons, who have repeatedly ignored other radiometric dating methods by only focusing on radiocarbon. It just show the levels of desperation and dishonesty among the authors of articles for AiG.

Thanks for the reply! Because carbon-14 doesn't last very long, it isn't a good way to determine the age of something more than 58,000 years old. However, since carbon-14 should be zero (or close to zero, given error, of course) for something millions of years old, couldn't this suggest it can tell us that something is not millions of years old?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks for the reply! Because carbon-14 doesn't last very long, it isn't a good way to determine the age of something more than 58,000 years old. However, since carbon-14 should be zero (or close to zero, given error, of course) for something millions of years old, couldn't this suggest it can tell us that something is not millions of years old?

Nope, and you gave the clue. The amount of C14 found in diamonds, coal, etc. is close to zero. I have yet to see an example that cannot be either contamination or even zero actual C14 and error by the testing apparatus. There is carbon dioxide everywhere. If the object is exposed to it through either the air or ground water it can have an anomalously young age.

For example a group of creationists sent some fossils to be carbon dated. They lied about what they were and their sources. That was important because at times steps can be taken to minimize contamination. But since that information was given they could only be dated as tested. Now if the dates were real they should all have been roughly the same date, since they were supposedly from the same event, the fictitious Flood of the Bible. If they were contamination then the dates should be in the older range for C14, but scattered all over the place. Guess what kind of dates they got?

 

[Audie]

Thanks! I'll try to check these out.

Thanks! I'll try to check these out.

It would be a great courtesy if you would pick just one (1) item to
discuss.
IF it is valid you dont need more. And if itis not-?
Then what?

It would be very thoughtful if you would say now if
you are willing and able to change your mind on that one
irem, acknowledge it is not valid if provided with the evidence
that it is not.

 

[Astrophile]

I've recently read Answers in Genesis's "10 Best Evidences From Science That Confirm a Young Earth." I'm wondering about some of the following arguments:

#3 Soft Tissue in Fossils
The third of the ten arguments is that soft tissue (with red blood cells) have been found in dinosaur fossils. How can dinosaurs living 65+ million years ago still have soft tissue?

#4 Faint Sun Paradox
Another argument AiG presents is the faint-sun paradox. Would the sun have been below freezing 3.5 billion years ago, preventing life from evolving?

#7 Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal, and Diamonds
Also, I've wondered about the carbon-14 found in ancient fossils, etc. Since the half-life of carbon-14 is about 5,700 years, how is it found in fossils dated to be millions of years old?

#9 Very Little Salt in the Sea
Finally, is the ocean only 1/70th as salty as we would expect if it came into existence naturally 3 billion years ago?

These are the four I wanted to look at. Thanks in advance for the input!

For what it is worth, Lorence G. Collins, in http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/collins.pdf argued that the accumulation of Cl- (chloride) ions in the oceans would require 3.6 billion years, and therefore that the oceans must be at least this old. This is an old paper, so its conclusions may have been superseded by later work; however, it implies that the present salinity of the oceans is consistent with the great age of the Earth.

It would also be more accurate to say that the lower luminosity of the young Sun would imply that, in the absence of a strong greenhouse effect, the Earth would have been below freezing 3.5 billion years ago. Obviously neither the Sun nor any other star can be below the freezing point of water.

 

[Audie]

For what it is worth, Lorence G. Collins, in http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/collins.pdf argued that the accumulation of Cl- (chloride) ions in the oceans would require 3.6 billion years, and therefore that the oceans must be at least this old. This is an old paper, so its conclusions may have been superseded by later work; however, it implies that the present salinity of the oceans is consistent with the great age of the Earth.

What of the great quantities of fossil salt?

 

[Astrophile]

What of the great quantities of fossil salt?

Collins's calculation includes the quantities of fossil salt as well as the salt in the oceans.

 

[Audie]

It would also be more accurate to say that the lower luminosity of the young Sun would imply that, in the absence of a strong greenhouse effect, the Earth would have been below freezing 3.5 billion years ago. Obviously neither the Sun nor any other star can be below the freezing point of water.

Frozen? Why Hitler and other Nazis thought the world was really made of ice

 

[Astrophile]

Frozen? Why Hitler and other Nazis thought the world was really made of ice

Hanns Hörbiger's 'World Ice Theory' is one of the classic examples of pseudoscience. The fact that Hitler and other Nazis believed in it demonstrates both their ignorance of science and their willingness to grasp at any absurd idea.

 

[Audie]

Hanns Hörbiger's 'World Ice Theory' is one of the classic examples of pseudoscience. The fact that Hitler and other Nazis believed in it demonstrates both their ignorance of science and their willingness to grasp at any absurd idea.

I will say it for you:

Creationists, take note.

 

[Quagmire]

I will say it for you:

Creationists, take note.

I think Astrophile was trying to be polite.

Maybe you should take notes.

 

[gnostic]

Thanks for the reply! Because carbon-14 doesn't last very long, it isn't a good way to determine the age of something more than 58,000 years old. However, since carbon-14 should be zero (or close to zero, given error, of course) for something millions of years old, couldn't this suggest it can tell us that something is not millions of years old?

You are forgetting something.

Fossilation don’t occur in the open air. More often than not, when fossilation do occur, it is usually because it surrounded and buried under sedimentary-typed rocks.

You not only can date the fossils but the fossils become part of the rocks and minerals. And these minerals can also be dated by other radiometric dating methods, such as radioactive isotopes lead-lead (Pb-Pb), potassium-argon (K-Ar), uranium-lead (U-Pb), etc.

Radiocarbon (C-14) isn’t the only radioactive isotope, and that other methods have longer half-life. You keep forgetting that.

Normally, c-14 get completely depleted from organic materials by 60,000 years, hence using other radiometric dating methods is far more logical.

Some fossil fuels, may contain trace amount of C-14, but not enough to confuse scientists, who would recognize such anomaly. That’s why scientists wouldn’t use C-14 radiometric dating on coal and petroleum oil.

Tell me, kilk1. Where are the sources of C-14 isotopes? Do you know why C-14 exist in animals and the human bodies?

 

[PruePhillip]

I've recently read Answers in Genesis's "10 Best Evidences From Science That Confirm a Young Earth." I'm wondering about some of the following arguments:

#3 Soft Tissue in Fossils
The third of the ten arguments is that soft tissue (with red blood cells) have been found in dinosaur fossils. How can dinosaurs living 65+ million years ago still have soft tissue?

#4 Faint Sun Paradox
Another argument AiG presents is the faint-sun paradox. Would the sun have been below freezing 3.5 billion years ago, preventing life from evolving?

#7 Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal, and Diamonds
Also, I've wondered about the carbon-14 found in ancient fossils, etc. Since the half-life of carbon-14 is about 5,700 years, how is it found in fossils dated to be millions of years old?

#9 Very Little Salt in the Sea
Finally, is the ocean only 1/70th as salty as we would expect if it came into existence naturally 3 billion years ago?

These are the four I wanted to look at. Thanks in advance for the input!

Some people look for issues which support a young earth, but wholly ignore
issues pointing to an old earth.
Genesis account of the seven days of creation is symbolic. I know of two other
places in the bible where seven was used symbolically when the real number
was available - Revelations and the "seven churches" and the two lots of seven
in Matthew's genealogy list. Revelation ignored many other churches and Matt
removed many names - both to create that symbolic seven - completeness.

The SEQUENCE OF EVENTS in Genesis is fully supported by science.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

I've recently read Answers in Genesis's "10 Best Evidences From Science That Confirm a Young Earth." I'm wondering about some of the following arguments:

#3 Soft Tissue in Fossils
The third of the ten arguments is that soft tissue (with red blood cells) have been found in dinosaur fossils. How can dinosaurs living 65+ million years ago still have soft tissue?

#4 Faint Sun Paradox
Another argument AiG presents is the faint-sun paradox. Would the sun have been below freezing 3.5 billion years ago, preventing life from evolving?

#7 Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal, and Diamonds
Also, I've wondered about the carbon-14 found in ancient fossils, etc. Since the half-life of carbon-14 is about 5,700 years, how is it found in fossils dated to be millions of years old?

#9 Very Little Salt in the Sea
Finally, is the ocean only 1/70th as salty as we would expect if it came into existence naturally 3 billion years ago?

These are the four I wanted to look at. Thanks in advance for the input!

I want to also impress upon you that some people don't believe dinosaur fossils are real in the first place.

The Atlantean Conspiracy

These people (along with their flat Earth stuff which is a separate article) make a case that found dinosaur bones are planted there with the attempt to defraud the public, and are usually patchwork parts of other animals or outright plaster casts, and the real bones are always locked away in a vault and never shown to the public. They go on to say that these bones conveniently showed up starting a little after Darwin and only archeologists, never any construction workers or people who dig for oil seem to ever find them.

If we want therefore to deny an old Earth, it wouldn't be unthinkable then to just decide dinosaur fossils themselves are fake.

 

[exchemist]

I want to also impress upon you that some people don't believe dinosaur fossils are real in the first place.

The Atlantean Conspiracy

These people (along with their flat Earth stuff which is a separate article) make a case that found dinosaur bones are planted there with the attempt to defraud the public, and are usually patchwork parts of other animals or outright plaster casts, and the real bones are always locked away in a vault and never shown to the public. They go on to say that these bones conveniently showed up starting a little after Darwin and only archeologists, never any construction workers or people who dig for oil seem to ever find them.

If we want therefore to deny an old Earth, it wouldn't be unthinkable then to just decide dinosaur fossils themselves are fake.

Yes that's the way forward: decide first what you want to believe and then dismiss as fakes and conspiracies any evidence that does not fit.

 

[gnostic]

They go on to say that these bones conveniently showed up starting a little after Darwin and only archeologists, never any construction workers or people who dig for oil seem to ever find them.

Sorry, but what does archaeology (study of human cultures, of man-made structures or man-made objects) have to with palaeontology (study of fossils)?

You do realise that archaeology and palaeontology are two separate and distinct studies.

Archaeologists don’t study fossils of dinosaurs, or of primitive mammals, or of primitive birds reptiles or marine life.

Second, Fossilation take longer than 10 thousand years to occur.

So people living during the Iron Age, Bronze Age and even early Neolithic period, there are no fossils of any humans in any of this periods. No fossils of people were ever found in coffins or tombs. You may find unfossilized remains, and you may find mummified or embalmed remains, but no human fossils before 10,000 years.

 

[gnostic]

They go on to say that these bones conveniently showed up starting a little after Darwin and only archeologists, never any construction workers or people who dig for oil seem to ever find them.

And that’s where the fake dinosaur fossil conspiracy theories are wrong. People for centuries large fossils for centuries, which they didn’t know what they were, long before Darwin and post-Darwin.

In China, people as far back as the Han dynasty thought these large fossils were that of mythological dragons.

In England, they found fossilized femur that were larger than any elephant’s femur, back in the 17th century. I don’t remember his name, but he was contemporary of Isaac Newton, and misidentified it to be that from a giant, like Nephilim, in the Bible. The femur was later to be identified as megalosaurus, from the Jurassic period.

No, Samantha; dinosaur fossils were discovered. It was simply just people didn’t know what species of animals that they came from and when.

It wasn’t Darwin who coined the word “dinosaur”, but his contemporary, Richard Owen, in 1842, nearly 2 decades before Darwin’s publication of On Origin of Species (1859).

Owen, though a friend to Darwin before On Origin became public, were later rivals after 1859, as well as rival to T.H. Huxley.The rivalries seemed intense at times, probably because he was jealous of Darwin and Huxley. But that's not really my point.

My point is that Darwin didn’t start the “discovery” of fossils of dinosaurs.

 

[Astrophile]

In England, they found fossilized femur that were larger than any elephant’s femur, back in the 17th century. I don’t remember his name, but he was contemporary of Isaac Newton, and misidentified it to be that from a giant, like Nephilim, in the Bible. The femur was later to be identified as megalosaurus, from the Jurassic period.

It was Robert Plot (1640-1696). According to Robert Plot - Wikipedia , he 'believed that most fossils were not remains of living organisms but rather crystallisations of mineral salts with a coincidental zoological form.'