• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Question for the Young Earth crowd

MdmSzdWhtGuy

Well-Known Member
Carbon 14 dating is, I beleive the current state of the art in dating items. I do know it has been used on items which were recovered that existed within the span of written history, and can be cross referenced with written records to test its accuracy.

It is my understanding for a scientific measuring devise to be utilized throughout the field, its results have to be reliable and reproduce-able. By testing materials who originate within the span of recorded history and cross referencing the results, Carbon 14 dating methods can be and have been substantiated.

I recently saw a special on the Shroud of Turin which went into some detail about the dating methods used to identify the age of artifacts. But I don't claim to be an expert in the field.

B.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
MdmSzdWhtGuy said:
Carbon 14 dating is, I beleive the current state of the art in dating items. I do know it has been used on items which were recovered that existed within the span of written history, and can be cross referenced with written records to test its accuracy.

It is my understanding for a scientific measuring devise to be utilized throughout the field, its results have to be reliable and reproduce-able. By testing materials who originate within the span of recorded history and cross referencing the results, Carbon 14 dating methods can be and have been substantiated.

I recently saw a special on the Shroud of Turin which went into some detail about the dating methods used to identify the age of artifacts. But I don't claim to be an expert in the field.

B.
I'm not attempting to cast any doubt in this but I'm just saying that it is unknown if carbon 14 has been consistant throughout time. There are certain things that affect the rate at which carbon leaves things. A hole in the o-zone layer is a good example. The answer to this question may never be known because we would have to go back in time at leat 5,000 years or so and do tests. Just don't be so certain that X is X years old. ;)

~Victor
 

JerryL

Well-Known Member
As a note MdmSzdWhtGuy, has dating methods always been consistant? From my understanding that is not the case. Im not a young earth advocate but I think old earth advocates also need to keep that in mind.
I can likely answer your question if you can phrase it more clearly.
 

Fatmop

Active Member
No one is totally certain that X is Y years old. (not X... technically, that means that I, Eric, am Eric years old ;) ) Scientists use probability when dealing with dating - they can reliably, with 95% or more certainty, tell you that X is Y years old. It's induction, but unless good reason is given to doubt their claims, this induction works just fine for scientists.
 

JerryL

Well-Known Member
I'm not attempting to cast any doubt in this but I'm just saying that it is unknown if carbon 14 has been consistant throughout time.
It has not been. But the tests are calibrated by testing things of independantly verifiable age (trees, ice layers, artificts with confirmed histories, etc)

There are certain things that affect the rate at which carbon leaves things.
Not really, as we are not discussing migration; we are discussing radioactive decay.


A hole in the o-zone layer is a good example.
No effect on decay rate of C14


The answer to this question may never be known because we would have to go back in time at leat 5,000 years or so and do tests. Just don't be so certain that X is X years old.
Or just test a bunch of 5,000 year old things... which we have done.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
JerryL said:
It has not been. But the tests are calibrated by testing things of independantly verifiable age (trees, ice layers, artificts with confirmed histories, etc)
How many things (that C14 or modern methods cannot be used) older then 500 years old? I can't think of anything off the top of my head. You need a dating method to date things. Please explain.
JerryL said:
Not really, as we are not discussing migration; we are discussing radioactive decay.

That's what I was talking about.
JerryL said:
No effect on decay rate of C14

I'll take your word for it. ;)
JerryL said:
Or just test a bunch of 5,000 year old things... which we have done.

You're killing me Larry!! :banghead3
Let's try this again. If you can't use C14 as a method of knowing how old something is, how can you figure it out? Be clear, Im slow. :D

~Victor
 

JerryL

Well-Known Member
How many things (that C14 or modern methods cannot be used) older then 500 years old? I can't think of anything off the top of my head. You need a dating method to date things. Please explain.
I don't think I understand your question. You are aksing for some things older than 500 years which can be C14 dated, and for which dating can also be established another way?

Many trees (the oldest known are over 3000 years)
Ice layers (go back as far as C14 dating will)
Various historical artificats (some entombed people for example).

That's what I was talking about.
What is what you are talking about?

You were not talking about radioactive decay, because in C14 decay, carbon does not leave.
If you were tlaking about ways in which carbon can be bled out:
1. I'm not sure it reasonably can.
2. It should remove both iseotopes in an equal manner.

Let's try this again. If you can't use C14 as a method of knowing how old something is, how can you figure it out? Be clear, Im slow.
To use a single example, trees, you can tell their age by counting the rings.
 

MdmSzdWhtGuy

Well-Known Member
I am not the one asked, but I beleive I know the answer. Re: testing of C14 dating methods and the accuracy thereof.

Take an article of known origin. Test that article using the C14 method. If the C14 method inticates the article is 600 years old for example, and you know from independant sources this is true, then that tends to show the C14 method to be accurate. Do this same test over and over on many different items of known origin, and you can eventually begin to rely on the C14 method as being accurate.

Once you have established its accuracy by measuring items of known origin, you can then begin using the C14 method as a tool to measure items of unkown origin. Once you have established the measurement method's accuracy through the procedure mentioned in the previous paragraph, then at that time you can rely on that accuracy in dating other objects and using the C14 results to accurately determine the time of this new, unknown objects origin.

I hope that helps.

B.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
JerryL said:
I don't think I understand your question. You are aksing for some things older than 500 years which can be C14 dated, and for which dating can also be established another way?[/color]

Many trees (the oldest known are over 3000 years)
Ice layers (go back as far as C14 dating will)
Various historical artificats (some entombed people for example).

What is what you are talking about?
You were not talking about radioactive decay, because in C14 decay, carbon does not leave.
If you were tlaking about ways in which carbon can be bled out:
1. I'm not sure it reasonably can.
2. It should remove both iseotopes in an equal manner.

To use a single example, trees, you can tell their age by counting the rings.
Jerry, I totally misunderstood you. I apologize. I gotcha now. :bounce

~Victor
 

CyberGlitch

New Member
Ok ,heres my first post....

I believe in the Younge earth theory.Basicly:

*The Universe and its organisms were created in 7 days according to the bible.

*After about 2000 years a great flood covered the earth.

*about 4500 years since then we stand here today.


Now let elaberate...in my opinion:
God is, he exists, but not quite how we understand existence. Our existence in defined through the matter, physics, space, and time that God created.

Isaiah 42:5 "Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out", aka, Big Bang. How God spread everything out and slowed it down and cooled it off in a day I don't know. Then again, this is God we are talking about, the being that created and defines physics. Nevertheless, the universe must currently expand at a certain rate. If it expands too slow (or not at all) it would collapse apon itself, and if it expands too fast spherical bodies of matter such as the sun apparently couldn't form.

Before the flood there is theorized to have been a "envelope" of moisture around the earth. This moisture both blocked UV rays (allowing Reptiles to live indefinitely, and because they never stop growing they get big, aka, what we today define as dinosaurs). It also replaced the earths need for rain.This is also refered to in the bible. Genisis 2:5,6 "And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and [there was] not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground." This gave the earth a tropical climate, perfect for dinosaurs and mammoths (studies on mammoths have shown that they would not good at surviving in the cold. It has to do with their sweat glands I believe). Great flood comes and wipes out most of the humans. The flood gets rid of the envelope of moister resulting in climates not friendly to dinosaurs. Dinosaurs have trouble surviving after the trip on the ark due to the lack of plants.

The dinosaurs caught in the flood were buried by the shifted ground created by the huge torrents on oncoming water. The mixture of water and great pressure (not just from the ground but from all the water above the ground) fossilized the dinosaurs in a much faster time than we assume fossilization takes. Given the right conditions fossilization can take place in less than a century (shown by the discovery of a fossilized cowboy boot).

What happened to those other dinosaurs from Noah's Ark though? Well some did survive and they have both been observed in the bible, as noted before, and in other legends such as the Chinease legends conscerning dragons. In fact, I read an article about these artifacts from Africa I believe that contained drawings of dinosaurs on them, Triceratops for example and Stegasaurus. Sorry about my lack or memory or url for the article. I read it a while ago, maybe someone else here knows where to find it?

As far as Carbon 14 dating goes, the debate can go on and on. I personally have concluded that, while it can prove accurate in certain given cases, it relies largely on assumtions that can in no way be scientific given our current knowledge. We could exchange different articles on this one all year. It probably deserves another topic.

As far as us being able to see the stars. There are two explinations for this. The first being how God created everything mature, including forming the state of the universe. The second being that light does not travel at a constant speed relative to us. Changes in time allow it travel much faster than our defined rates say.


And now for my own question:
If humans exhisted for the last 4.5 million years, wouldn't the population rise to huge amounts, resulting in numerous fossils and such? Yet we have trouble finding even one human fossil. Assuming that 2 humans started the population and the population doubled every century (death is not counted in this example, but a century is a good amount of time), then after 4.5 million years we'd have...well...a larger amount of humans than my calulator can handel
wink.gif
.
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
er..there is no good evidence for an 'envelope' of water around the earth...

dinosaurs are more like birds than any reptiles... they didn't live forever many grew fast and died young. why don't you ever find elephants and dinosaurs together if they all died together in the flood? and the boot isn't fossilized its petrified.. different process.

humans haven't existed 4.5 million years.. we humans have only been around for the past 100,000 or so years... Hominids have been around 4.5 million years.
And the reason we havent overpopulated before now is lack of certen advantages such as modern medicine, waste disposal, food production, plastics and other goodies we have today.
ahh.. and the lack of certen large predators who hunted humans in the past helps too.

What evidence is there that the earth is only a few thousand years old other than the bible?

my people have a history that goes back over ten thousand years... big horn medicine wheel has been in continuous use for over 4,000 years... the biblical timeline somehow misses us :D

wa:do
 

ChrisP

Veteran Member
10,000 - 12,000 years is how old I believe the earth is. Although I am not an Abrahamic, I believe there was a great flood on the earth at one point. Water erosion and sea shells have been found on Mt Everest, in describing the flood, the bible states that the earth split asunder. (ie. Broke open) and water poured forth. Perhaps an eyewitness account of how the continents seperated. I have no doubt that the earths land mass was once more concentrated in one area, this 'splitting' of the earth in reference to the flood would indicate the division of the continents, and also the seperation of man throughout those continents.

There's always some fact behind Myths, so even if you think the bible to be untrue, consider the possibilities of some eye witness accounts being included to events that mark our planets ancient history.
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
how could Noah and his family have breathed if the water covered Mt. Everest?
Mt. Everest was once at the bottom of an ocean... millions of years ago and has been growing ever sence... it still is, at a rate of about 2.4 inches every year. :D
it has grown aproxamately a mile up in 26,000 years, not bad really.

Ultimately the problem of the flood is... where did all the water go?
If it was enough to cover the whole Earth then surely it should cover it all now?

now some quick math... Mt. Everest is 29,035 ft tall from it base (not sea level mind you). Now say its been growing steady at the present rate since the time of the flood or about 4,500 years. Thats 10,800 inches... quite a bit.. but for Mt. Everest to have risen the rest of the way during the flood it would have to rocket 937.83 inches every day or about 78.15 feet... each day!:eek:

IMHO flood myths are the natural result of living near large bodies of floodable water.. rivers and some lakes and sea side places... the 'best' places for people really.

wa:do
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
Hi Cyberglitch,


As you say yourself, this is your first post here;

I would therefore like to welcome you to the forum, and I hope you will enjoy it here.

perhaps you would like to introduce yourself to the other members by posting on

Are you new to ReligiousForums.com?;)
 
Top