Evidences given for a young-earth

[Ouroboros]

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?

If I remember right, one of the explanations is that under a certain threshold, we can't really measure and the measure equipment will return a low reading even when there's none. But I could be wrong of course. Another explanation is that the half-life is just that, a half of a half of a half of a half, etc, ad infinitum. There could always be a single C14 left for a very long time before it collapses to C12 (That's how it works, right? It was a while ago I studied these things).

 

[Subduction Zone]

If I remember right, one of the explanations is that under a certain threshold, we can't really measure and the measure equipment will return a low reading even when there's none. But I could be wrong of course. Another explanation is that the half-life is just that, a half of a half of a half of a half, etc, ad infinitum. There could always be a single C14 left for a very long time before it collapses to C12 (That's how it works, right? It was a while ago I studied these things).

The problem is usually contamination at some point. And no, C14 decays back to N14. If the sample somehow got contaminated to atmospheric carbon dioxide it will have a false young age. And a porous rock exposed to groundwater with dissolved gases in it would be a perfect example. It takes only a very small amount to give a false age.

 

[Ouroboros]

The problem is usually contamination at some point. And no, C14 decays back to N14. If the sample somehow got contaminated to atmospheric carbon dioxide it will have a false young age. And a porous rock exposed to groundwater with dissolved gases in it would be a perfect example. It takes only a very small amount to give a false age.

Ah. Thanks for the information. It was a long time ago I looked into these things.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ah. Thanks for the information. It was a long time ago I looked into these things.

No problem. C14, at least the C14 used for carbon dating, is made in the upper atmosphere when a N14 atom is struck by a cosmic ray and it changes a proton into a neutron. That is C14, a radioactive substance. It eventually undergoes beta decay back to the stable N14.

 

[exchemist]

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.'

Interesting. It seems from the article that the The Learned Dr Plot got most things wrong, including the notion that underground springs came from the sea and an attribution of Roman archeological remains to the Saxons. A bit disappointing, given that he was an FRS and a contemporary, or near contemporary, of both Boyle and Newton. But this era was the dawn of modern science, so I suppose one ought to be careful not to read history backwards.

 

[exchemist]

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.

Except that there are two sequences of events in Genesis that are not even consistent with each other, let alone with science.

 

[PruePhillip]

Except that there are two sequences of events in Genesis that are not even consistent with each other, let alone with science.

That's true. The second creation story is quite different.
It's important to realize there are many double accounts
in the bible of events. ie David is supposed to have come
to the attention of the king through killing Goliath, a second
account has him as a flute or lyre player to the king.
At one stage two nations "owned" the bible - Judea and
Israel, maybe this is part of the reason.

BTW the first creation account, with the sequence of the
earth and heaven, is fully consistent with science. The
only exception is the way it was shoehorned into seven
days, signifying completeness.

 

[PruePhillip]

No problem. C14, at least the C14 used for carbon dating, is made in the upper atmosphere when a N14 atom is struck by a cosmic ray and it changes a proton into a neutron. That is C14, a radioactive substance. It eventually undergoes beta decay back to the stable N14.

I have a Seven Day Adventist friend who challenges Carbon Dating. It's not precise,
but as we have gotten better at it the dates that were once out of reach are found to
be actually older than first thought.
The whole universe is full of clocks - from sediments in lakes to decaying atoms.
They all, more or less, agree with the timetable of an ancient universe.

 

[exchemist]

That's true. The second creation story is quite different.
It's important to realize there are many double accounts
in the bible of events. ie David is supposed to have come
to the attention of the king through killing Goliath, a second
account has him as a flute or lyre player to the king.
At one stage two nations "owned" the bible - Judea and
Israel, maybe this is part of the reason.

BTW the first creation account, with the sequence of the
earth and heaven, is fully consistent with science. The
only exception is the way it was shoehorned into seven
days, signifying completeness.

Chapter one has day and night before the sun was created.

 

[PruePhillip]

Chapter one has day and night before the sun was created.

Depends how you read it.
It says in v1 that God created the "heavens" and the "earth"
The heavens include the sun, moon, stars etc..
v2 puts YOU, the observer, on the early earth during its
ocean period when the earth was a cloud planet like
Venus and Titan. God clears the sky, raises the "land"
and then life appears - not created by God but by God's
"command" which I take to be the laws of nature.
And finally man.
not Eve
no breath of life
no talking snakes.

 

[exchemist]

Depends how you read it.
It says in v1 that God created the "heavens" and the "earth"
The heavens include the sun, moon, stars etc..
v2 puts YOU, the observer, on the early earth during its
ocean period when the earth was a cloud planet like
Venus and Titan. God clears the sky, raises the "land"
and then life appears - not created by God but by God's
"command" which I take to be the laws of nature.
And finally man.
not Eve
no breath of life
no talking snakes.

Chapter one creates the sun (and moon) on the fourth day, after the Earth and after "the waters". How can you have a "day" with no sun?

There is no way this can make any sense if taken literally. The whole thing has to be seen allegorically.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have a Seven Day Adventist friend who challenges Carbon Dating. It's not precise,
but as we have gotten better at it the dates that were once out of reach are found to
be actually older than first thought.
The whole universe is full of clocks - from sediments in lakes to decaying atoms.
They all, more or less, agree with the timetable of an ancient universe.

You mean radiometric dating. Your error was on the order of calling all dogs "poodles". And yes, the SDA's are science deniers. They have a bit of a cult going.

 

[exchemist]

I have a Seven Day Adventist friend who challenges Carbon Dating. It's not precise,
but as we have gotten better at it the dates that were once out of reach are found to
be actually older than first thought.
The whole universe is full of clocks - from sediments in lakes to decaying atoms.
They all, more or less, agree with the timetable of an ancient universe.

Quite right. And as Subduction Zone, says C14 is just one of those clocks, which is good for the last 50,000 yrs or so but not much earlier.

What is very annoying is when Seventh Day Adventists, or other YECs, mislabel all radiometric dating as "carbon dating" - and then proceed to ridicule it by pointing out that carbon (durrh!) can't be used for earlier epochs! It is just one of many examples of them using ignorance to push falsehoods.

 

[PruePhillip]

Chapter one creates the sun (and moon) on the fourth day, after the Earth and after "the waters". How can you have a "day" with no sun?

There is no way this can make any sense if taken literally. The whole thing has to be seen allegorically.

And verse 1 creates the "heavens" before the "first day"
even starts.
And the Hebrew "heavens" was the sun, moon and stars.

There's two ways of looking at the text. Take your pick.

When NASA went to Titan with their Huygens probe
they wanted to see a "precursor earth" and expected
to find a dark, cold, sterile, ocean world. As it was
the oceans were merely seas and lakes.
But it's what the early earth was like. Genesis 1
gives us this image of an earth already formed, and
in the "heavens" - BEFORE THE "DAYS" BEGAN.
It was dark, sterile, oceanic and without any "form"
(landmarks of any sort.)

Yes the text is confusing. It ought to be, it comes from
Sumer or even earlier. Word of mouth and translation
by translation for four, five or more thousand years.
But you can still see something of interest, like trying
to decipher those faded and broken clay tablets.

 

[Polymath257]

The problem is usually contamination at some point. And no, C14 decays back to N14. If the sample somehow got contaminated to atmospheric carbon dioxide it will have a false young age. And a porous rock exposed to groundwater with dissolved gases in it would be a perfect example. It takes only a very small amount to give a false age.

I also saw one report where trace amounts of C14 were formed by exposure of nitrogen to uranium. The emissions from the uranium induced the same sort of change that cosmic rays do in the upper atmosphere.

Thinking about it a bit, though, makes me skeptical. Uranium primarily emits alpha particles and neutrons are needed for the N14->C14 conversion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I also saw one report where trace amounts of C14 were formed by exposure of nitrogen to uranium. The emissions from the uranium induced the same sort of change that cosmic rays do in the upper atmosphere.

Thinking about it a bit, though, makes me skeptical. Uranium primarily emits alpha particles and neutrons are needed for the N14->C14 conversion.

U238 will undergo spontaneous fission, but the half life for that is huge. But there is a way to date rocks using it:

The spontaneous fission rate of U-238 and fission track dating - ScienceDirect

With a half life of 8.7*10^17 years I doubt if it would make enough neutrons either.

Edit: oops, that is the radioactive decay constant and should be raised to the negative seventeen and years to the -1. That still is a very very long half life.

 

[Polymath257]

U238 will undergo spontaneous fission, but the half life for that is huge. But there is a way to date rocks using it:

The spontaneous fission rate of U-238 and fission track dating - ScienceDirect

With a half life of 8.7*10^17 years I doubt if it would make enough neutrons either.

Edit: oops, that is the radioactive decay constant and should be raised to the negative seventeen.

There are some beta decays in the uranium decays series, so it is *possible* for the N14 to undergo an electron capture and become C14. I'm not sure what the cross section is for that reaction, though.

 

[Audie]

Quite right. And as Subduction Zone, says C14 is just one of those clocks, which is good for the last 50,000 yrs or so but not much earlier.

What is very annoying is when Seventh Day Adventists, or other YECs, mislabel all radiometric dating as "carbon dating" - and then proceed to ridicule it by pointing out that carbon (durrh!) can't be used for earlier epochs! It is just one of many examples of them using ignorance to push falsehoods.

Among the examples of why I call it deliberate
intellectual dishonesty

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are some beta decays in the uranium decays series, so it is *possible* for the N14 to undergo an electron capture and become C14. I'm not sure what the cross section is for that reaction, though.

That is why I lean towards contamination. From my understanding there are steps that can be done to remove possible contaminants, but to do so the dating facility would need to know what they were working with. When a group of creationists had several fossils dated no such information was given. The facility was simply told to date them, so they did. When they found how their services were abused they were not pleased. They rightfully felt that the group was dishonest. Still the dating information was not worthless. Since most of these are flood believers and they believed that the flood deposited the dated fossils they should all have had the date of the flood. If they were due to contamination then quite a bit of variation would be reasonable. One guess as to whether the dates were the same or varied significantly.

 

[gnostic]

There could always be a single C14 left for a very long time before it collapses to C12 (That's how it works, right?

And no, C14 decays back to N14.

Yes. My understanding is that during the decay of C14, the carbon would convert one of the neutrons into a proton, thereby transforming carbon into nitrogen atom.