How old is man?

[james bond]

The commandment against bearing false
witness does not apply to you?

(btw, saying diamonds have carbon left is
at least vaguely humorous, in that diamonds
are composed of carbon)

It's not bearing false witness when I state radioisotope dating is based on assumptions. I'm not questioning the methodology. In fact, creationists are using C14 dating because they can.

The C14 remains in the diamond more easily as it doesn't escape as fast as in coal. If the diamond was actually millions of years old, then even the diamond would have lost all its C14.

 

[metis]

C-14 must be adjusted, generally using tree rings, because it is somewhat variable because of climatic conditions at the time the organism lived. Depending on various factors, it can be more or less accurate.

Also, it is not used on fossils that are anywhere near a million years old but, fortunately, there are other forms of radioactive dating that can and are used which, generally speaking, don't have to be adjusted.

 

[james bond]

What are our erroneous assumptions?

Of course radiocarbon dating's going to reveal a fairly young world. Fifty thousand years is about the limit of its application. No-one would use it on really old samples.
Other radiometric methods reveal an age of billions of years.

How did the evos come up the age of the Earth as 4.5 billions years old? Who came up with it? Let's start with those answers.

 

[james bond]

C14 dating has been corroborated by other, consilient dating techniques confirming carbon dates on particular samples. It's limits are well known, and unexpected findings are usually discovered to be sampling or methodological errors.
If an unexpected result were found; no methodological errors could be discovered, and repeated testing continued to yield the same result, the result would usually be accepted as provisionally true.
There's no scientific agenda to push any particular doctrine. In fact, if you want to make a name for yourself in science, the way to do it is to upend current thinking.

ETA: My bad. This is Religions Q&A. The Bible states we have a young Earth if we use it for calculations. They are explained here -- The Bible Says the Earth is Young.

Fine -- but it's objectively wrong, isn't it?


10,000+ year old stele:

[/QUOTE]

Hey, you're on CF, too, aren't you?

What is the 10K yrs old stele?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How did the evos come up the age of the Earth as 4.5 billions years old? Who came up with it? Let's start with those answers.

You would need to learn some history of science. Early Christian geologists were the first to realize that the Noah's Ark story was a myth. There was no evidence of the flood and such a powerful worldwide event would leave endless evidence. They were able to get minimum estimates for various layers and realized that the Earth was many millions of years old. At that point there was only relative dating, we could tell which layers were older than others. And estimates for time of deposits for some of the layers.

But there was no way to directly measure the Earth since there were countless missing layers. As I said, earlier estimates were minimum ages, not maximum. This was later than the earliest of ages, but it is one you can check out in the U.S.. The Green River Formation is a deposit in a large inland lake with millions of years of annual varves. A person can go out to the formation and try to count them for oneself. And that is just one single formation.


We were not able to get absolute dates until after radioactivity was discovered and all that came along with it. That allowed dating of individual rocks. One had to rely on mostly igneous rocks for that, but since volcanic eruptions and ash layers can be found all around the Earth and correlating that with relative dating we do now have accurate dates for the various ages. When one says that layers are dated "by its fossils" that will always lead back to several radiometric dates for specific layers.

But that still does not give us an age of the Earth. Though older and older samples are continually found, the early Earth was mostly turned over more than once. I think that the oldest Earth based radiometric date is about 4.1 billion years old.

To get the date of the Earth we go to the meteorites. The idea is that they would have formed at roughly the same time as the Earth. By dating the meteorites one dates the Earth as well.

 

[Audie]

It's not bearing false witness when I state radioisotope dating is based on assumptions. I'm not questioning the methodology. In fact, creationists are using C14 dating because they can.

The C14 remains in the diamond more easily as it doesn't escape as fast as in coal. If the diamond was actually millions of years old, then even the diamond would have lost all its C14.

Never said you were. This is the false witnessing-

Instead, they take only that which fits their preconceived notions of evolutionary time chronology. Basically, atheist scientists use of it is circular reasoning.

Or are you not aware of it when you make things up?

 

[Audie]

That's not what the RATE group found -- Radiocarbon in Diamonds Confirmed.

#7 Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal, and Diamonds

Dinosaur fossils were radiocarbon dated to 40 K years. Now, that isn't 6,000 years, but it is much closer to 6,000 than 200 million. Moreover, the radiometric dating isn't going to give us precise dating. That's just the nature of radiometric dating. It really is about old Earth vs young Earth.

RATE. Of course.
PCTID

People committed to intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No one is questioning the methodology of radiometric dating. C14 dating is radiometric dating. If you look at the radioisotope dating, we find it's not the methodolgy that is wrong, but the assumptions. If you get variety of dates for a sample using radioisotope dating, then toss the entire sample out. Instead, they take only that which fits their preconceived notions of evolutionary time chronology. Basically, atheist scientists use of it is circular reasoning. I think all of the carbon and diamond samples thought to be millions of years old still had carbon left and was able to be C14 dated. This includes the dinosaur fossils.

ETA: My bad. This is Religions Q&A. The Bible states we have a young Earth if we use it for calculations. They are explained here -- The Bible Says the Earth is Young.

So your source says that the Bible is wrong. I would choose better sources if I was a Christian. One cannot just throw out data that does not agree with a prediction. One has to find out if the data was wrong or the prediction was wrong. With C14 there are various possible sources of contamination. It is usually very reliable, but one can always find exceptions. For example it was found rather early that sea life has ridiculously high ages. That was soon understood. What one is dating with C14 dating is not the object itself, but how long since the C14 was made. Since atmospheric mixing is relatively rapid one is dating the carbon that came from the atmosphere. Since the ocean tends to have currents, and even recycling of carbon, it may have been a long time since the carbon involved was in the atmosphere. There is even a term for this. It is called "The Reservoir Effect". In other words carbon in the ocean quite often has been held in a reservoir for a while and will usually have a different date than say a squirrel that only eats tree nuts. The squirrel's carbon will all be very fresh. That in the ocean not so much.

There are other ways that samples can be contaminated too. Some of those can be dealt with. Some can't. But one can often tell by the data if if dates are from contamination or not. For example a group of creationists took some samples of various dinosaur fossils and sent them in to be dated. They lied about the source to the dating company, that alone is a bad sign. "Dates" came back and they were all far younger than they should have been. They claimed "proof of a young Earth". But was it? If it was, as so many creationists claim, from flood deposits they should have a young age. But if it was from contamination it would also have a young age. So how to tell the difference? If it was all from he flood then they should all have had roughly the same age. Dinosaurs are land animals and would not be subject to the Reservoir Effect. But if it was from contamination then the dates should be young but scattered all over the place. Guess what, the dates were all over the place.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's not what the RATE group found -- Radiocarbon in Diamonds Confirmed.

#7 Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal, and Diamonds

Dinosaur fossils were radiocarbon dated to 40 K years. Now, that isn't 6,000 years, but it is much closer to 6,000 than 200 million. Moreover, the radiometric dating isn't going to give us precise dating. That's just the nature of radiometric dating. It really is about old Earth vs young Earth.

This is called a PRATT. A Point Refuted a Thousand Times. Instead of grasping a straws and listening to groups where one has to swear not to use the scientific method you should do all of your homework and find out what this was refuted a long time ago.

 

[Audie]

So your source says that the Bible is wrong. I would choose better sources if I was a Christian. One cannot just throw out data that does not agree with a prediction. One has to find out if the data was wrong or the prediction was wrong. With C14 there are various possible sources of contamination. It is usually very reliable, but one can always find exceptions. For example it was found rather early that sea life has ridiculously high ages. That was soon understood. What one is dating with C14 dating is not the object itself, but how long since the C14 was made. Since atmospheric mixing is relatively rapid one is dating the carbon that came from the atmosphere. Since the ocean tends to have currents, and even recycling of carbon, it may have been a long time since the carbon involved was in the atmosphere. There is even a term for this. It is called "The Reservoir Effect". In other words carbon in the ocean quite often has been held in a reservoir for a while and will usually have a different date than say a squirrel that only eats tree nuts. The squirrel's carbon will all be very fresh. That in the ocean not so much.

There are other ways that samples can be contaminated too. Some of those can be dealt with. Some can't. But one can often tell by the data if if dates are from contamination or not. For example a group of creationists took some samples of various dinosaur fossils and sent them in to be dated. They lied about the source to the dating company, that alone is a bad sign. "Dates" came back and they were all far younger than they should have been. They claimed "proof of a young Earth". But was it? If it was, as so many creationists claim, from flood deposits they should have a young age. But if it was from contamination it would also have a young age. So how to tell the difference? If it was all from he flood then they should all have had roughly the same age. Dinosaurs are land animals and would not be subject to the Reservoir Effect. But if it was from contamination then the dates should be young but scattered all over the place. Guess what, the dates were all over the place.

C14 dating is not intended to "prove" anything,
nor to defeat god, nor nor nor.

It is an interesting research tool, often very interesting
and often dead on.

It is used for one, in the dating of ice cores.

One can count layers back to AD 79, find the
spike in sulfuric acid and ash from Vesuvias, and
get a carbon date very close plus or minus, to AD79.

Or you can date the
"shroud of turin" if they will ever permit it,
and get a date much younger than year zero.

 

[Audie]

This is called a PRATT. A Point Refuted a Thousand Times. Instead of grasping a straws and listening to groups where one has to swear not to use the scientific method you should do all of your homework and find out what this was refuted a long time ago.

Go to an honest a reputable source, even more to the point.

And yet more to any point our hero may have-
give us one fact contrary to ToE.

Let me have it, I want the Nobel.

 

[Subduction Zone]

C14 dating is not intended to "prove" anything,
nor to defeat god, nor nor nor.

It is an interesting research tool, often very interesting
and often dead on.

It is used for one, in the dating of ice cores.

One can count layers back to AD 79, find the
spike in sulfuric acid and ash from Vesuvias, and
get a carbon date very close plus or minus, to AD79.

Or you can date the
"shroud of turin" if they will ever permit it,
and get a date much younger than year zero.

I know. It is only literallists that make that claim. Demonstrating that the Bible is wrong in points does not "refute God" it only refutes Bible literalism. But then the bad theology alone of Bible literalism refutes it.

EDIT: And the Shroud of Turin was dated. True Believers do not accept the date.

 

[exchemist]

That's not what the RATE group found -- Radiocarbon in Diamonds Confirmed.

#7 Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal, and Diamonds

Dinosaur fossils were radiocarbon dated to 40 K years. Now, that isn't 6,000 years, but it is much closer to 6,000 than 200 million. Moreover, the radiometric dating isn't going to give us precise dating. That's just the nature of radiometric dating. It really is about old Earth vs young Earth.

What a farce. At 50,000yrs, which is the age they claim to have calculated, there is hardly any C14 left. So at that extremity of the technique you have to do it exceptionally accurately, because even a minuscule amount of C14 from external influences will throw the calculation out and give an age that is far too low. What they will have found is essentially zero, plus a bit of contamination through shoddy work. So they comically use their their bad analytical technique to try to show something absurd.

As for the diamond and coal, they have simply failed, probably deliberately, to take into account that U and Th have decay processes that lead to C14, as I mentioned in my previous post. I note they make no reference to uranaium or thorium in the write up. Too inconvenient to mention, I expect.

But that won't matter to Answers in Genesis, because they have no interest in doing any real science. For them, it is all about providing spurious talking points, for the poor dopes that desperately want to believe their lies. Since none of the intended audience knows much science, it is easy for them to bamboozle them with this crap.

Oh and by the way, even the 50,000yr age they claim to have found is itself ten times the age of the Earth according to Ussher's chronology. So now, if they believe this data, they have to find a rationale for saying the Earth is 10 times older than they have been claiming for years. Have they done that? I bet they haven't.

 

[PruePhillip]

Sorry, but why do we keep harking back to this particular religious work? What does the bible have to do with objective facts of Physical Anthropology or Geology?

For that matter, why is only the Bible being cited? Why has no-one brought up any other religious scriptures?

As I see it, religious equivalency and lead to all sorts of equivalencies, including
the moral one - you can just pick and chose a religion that suits your behavior,
as if none of them are truth.
If you can bring up another "scripture" that sets forth the events and their
sequence like Genesis 1 then I would be interested.
again.
God made the heaven
and the earth
and the earth was an oceanic cloud planet
and the skies cleared
and the continents rose
and life emerged on land
and then in the sea
and finally man.

 

[PruePhillip]

Not in the least. I would be impressed if it made scientific sense but it does not. And then Genesis 2 says something that contradicts it - which is even more scientifically wrong.

But this was obvious to scholars from the very start. Origen thought it ridiculous to take literally back in 200AD. We did not have to wait for science to come along after the Reformation to reach the conclusion that these are allegorical stories.

Don't know anything about Origen
but the BASIC FACTS, when filtered for language, theological add ons and repeats
NEVER MADE SENSE TO ANYONE PRIOR TO OUR GENERATION.

ie God commanded the seas to bring-forth-life
God caused land-to-appear-out-of-the-sea

and even the statement that life came from land first was dispute until 2019.

I hold the second Genesis account to be a highly symbolic theological
work not dissimilar from some of the Daniel and Revelation texts.

 

[PruePhillip]

No one is questioning the methodology of radiometric dating. C14 dating is radiometric dating. If you look at the radioisotope dating, we find it's not the methodolgy that is wrong, but the assumptions. If you get variety of dates for a sample using radioisotope dating, then toss the entire sample out. Instead, they take only that which fits their preconceived notions of evolutionary time chronology. Basically, atheist scientists use of it is circular reasoning. I think all of the carbon and diamond samples thought to be millions of years old still had carbon left and was able to be C14 dated. This includes the dinosaur fossils.

ETA: My bad. This is Religions Q&A. The Bible states we have a young Earth if we use it for calculations. They are explained here -- The Bible Says the Earth is Young.

I was thinking about some of these big craters.
Take the one that hit Yucatan for instance. The
impact drove a mountain sized rock 7 km into
the ground. The molten rock that came back
down drove air temperatures to around 700 C.
And then the darkened earth simply froze over.
If the earth was only 6,000 years old I would
wonder how did all this could have happened
in such a short time scale.

 

[james bond]

You would need to learn some history of science. Early Christian geologists were the first to realize that the Noah's Ark story was a myth. There was no evidence of the flood and such a powerful worldwide event would leave endless evidence. They were able to get minimum estimates for various layers and realized that the Earth was many millions of years old. At that point there was only relative dating, we could tell which layers were older than others. And estimates for time of deposits for some of the layers.

But there was no way to directly measure the Earth since there were countless missing layers. As I said, earlier estimates were minimum ages, not maximum. This was later than the earliest of ages, but it is one you can check out in the U.S.. The Green River Formation is a deposit in a large inland lake with millions of years of annual varves. A person can go out to the formation and try to count them for oneself. And that is just one single formation.


We were not able to get absolute dates until after radioactivity was discovered and all that came along with it. That allowed dating of individual rocks. One had to rely on mostly igneous rocks for that, but since volcanic eruptions and ash layers can be found all around the Earth and correlating that with relative dating we do now have accurate dates for the various ages. When one says that layers are dated "by its fossils" that will always lead back to several radiometric dates for specific layers.

But that still does not give us an age of the Earth. Though older and older samples are continually found, the early Earth was mostly turned over more than once. I think that the oldest Earth based radiometric date is about 4.1 billion years old.

To get the date of the Earth we go to the meteorites. The idea is that they would have formed at roughly the same time as the Earth. By dating the meteorites one dates the Earth as well.

See that's an assumption -- that the meteorites formed the same time as the solar system. You couldn't answer who it was -- Clair Patterson. Those were the answers I was looking for.

As for the rest, it would be better if you provided a link. Let's just say with your extraneous wrong commentary and idiotic criticism of real science that you are not credible at all.

 

[Audie]

I was thinking about some of these big craters.
Take the one that hit Yucatan for instance. The
impact drove a mountain sized rock 7 km into
the ground. The molten rock that came back
down drove air temperatures to around 700 C.
And then the darkened earth simply froze over.
If the earth was only 6,000 years old I would
wonder how did all this could have happened
in such a short time scale.

Nice to see someone not just chanting dimly
comprehended PRATTS from a creosite

 

[james bond]

I was thinking about some of these big craters.
Take the one that hit Yucatan for instance. The
impact drove a mountain sized rock 7 km into
the ground. The molten rock that came back
down drove air temperatures to around 700 C.
And then the darkened earth simply froze over.
If the earth was only 6,000 years old I would
wonder how did all this could have happened
in such a short time scale.

Creation scientists look at the meteors to get an idea of how the Earth was formed. They think they were broken off from asteroids due to collisions in space. Instead of trying to find out how old Earth and the universe is, they help teach us about the the Earth's core. These meteorites have a crust, mantle, and core. They are made of different materials such as stone, iron, or a mixture of stone-iron.

Before you get to what you propose, can you find this Chicxulub? How do you know it's there? I agree it was a gigantic meteorite impact.

 

[PruePhillip]

Creation scientists look at the meteors to get an idea of how the Earth was formed. They think they were broken off from asteroids due to collisions in space. Instead of trying to find out how old Earth and the universe is, they help teach us about the the Earth's core. These meteorites have a crust, mantle, and core. They are made of different materials such as stone, iron, or a mixture of stone-iron.

Before you get to what you propose, can you find this Chicxulub? How do you know it's there? I agree it was a gigantic meteorite impact.

We believe that planets have a sort of onion ring of elements/minerals.
So Uranium for instance sinks to the bottom, and further up you get a
layer of gold and so on until at the top you get the lighter silicates.
Interestingly, it's possible that a lot of our minerals come from another
planet which has been broken up. Imagine finding a pure gold asteroid
out there!!
Chicxulub crater I think is underwater, and that's why people couldn't
any "smoking gun" for a 66 million year old event that could have
wiped out the dinosaurs. Scarily, the six mile wide rock isn't that big
compared to many "out there."