The Earth is young

[NobleMouse]

Hi Dan! As was correctly pointed out, C-14 dating is useful for dating things that were once alive within the last 50,000 years (as after that point the half life of C-14 leaves virtually no traceable amount of C-14). If interested, the following are informative articles on radiometric dating (I'll caveat, from a YEC perspective - you'll want to check out additional articles as well if you want the perspective of those that operate within the conventional paradigm of billions of years):

Radiometric dating age of earth - creation.com
Carbon-14, Radiometric Dating - CSI
How accurate are Carbon-14 and other radioactive dating methods? • ChristianAnswers.Net
Stunning Evidence for Accelerated Radioactive Decay | Evolution Dismantled

From a YEC standpoint, don't get too hung up on conventional dating as the decay rates of different isotopes from the same sample have been shown to give dates that vary as much as 1 billion years (see RATE project), plus decay rates have been demonstrated to not be an immovable constant and in fact have been accelerated by a factor of a billion. Also, if radiometric dating was so accurate, there would be no need for Geologists to provide an expected date range on the dating form sent along with the sample to the lab - the date back from the lab would be the true date regardless of what was expected and regardless of what was corroborated by other evidence.

C-14 has been found in dinosaur bones (the same ones from 65+ million years ago) with soft tissue in them.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

From a YEC standpoint, don't get too hung up on conventional dating as the decay rates of different isotopes from the same sample have been shown to give dates that vary as much as 1 billion years (see RATE project)

The RATE project deliberately used methods that will not work on young rocks (due to very long half-lives, the inverse problem as the one you explained for C-14 - if not enough time has passed, not enough daughter product will be created to be accurately measurable) to date modern samples, among other dishonesty. There have been many, many posts on this topic throughout these forums.

plus decay rates have been demonstrated to not be an immovable constant and in fact have been accelerated by a factor of a billion.

Very slight variations in decay rate have been observed in a few cases under highly-controlled conditions. These variations are not enough to have a significant effect on measured ages. The specific study you're referencing here though requires the material to be heated to a plasma state - many times hotter than the interior of the sun. This presents a number of problems when trying to fit it into a young-earth hypothesis. There is the problem of heat - namely, where did it go? Also, it provides no explanation for ages obtained from rocks that can be shown to have never been heated above 1000 C - let alone millions of degrees.

Also, if radiometric dating was so accurate, there would be no need for Geologists to provide an expected date range on the dating form sent along with the sample to the lab - the date back from the lab would be the true date regardless of what was expected and regardless of what was corroborated by other evidence.

As you pointed out, different materials have different half-lives, so knowing an approximate age will give researchers an idea of which dating method to use. For example, Ar-Ar dating is often used on volcanic rocks. But it's really only useful on samples older than ~20 million years. So if you sent me a volcanic rock and asked me to date it, I'd need to know what age you suspected it might be - if it were modern, I'd have to use something else.

C-14 has been found in dinosaur bones (the same ones from 65+ million years ago) with soft tissue in them.

These are separate claims. Miller's C-14 dating of dinosaur bones had multiple flaws, chief among them being the fact that the bones were heavily contaminated with shellac (an organic adhesive, and thus full of carbon).

The collagen found in some dinosaur bones has been demonstrated to be the result of iron preservation. Pretty neat!

 

[Job 33:6]

C-14 has been found in dinosaur bones (the same ones from 65+ million years ago) with soft tissue in them.

Aside from this claim being likely untrue...

I just want to add that, its funny that young earthers cling to controversial findings made out by fringe religious individuals on very rare occasions. How many thousands of publications have their been on dinosaur bones? Countless.

Meanwhile, if dinosaurs really existed 6000 years ago, every single fossil would contain C-14 and this discussion wouldnt even be happening right now.

Even if young earthers believed that just 1 fossil of the hundreds of thousands found, had C-14, It could be asked why the other 99% of fossils do not have C-14 if they died just recently.

It makes more sense that the 0.00001% find, written up by the religious young earth creationist, is more likely to be false, than the 99.999% of other finds, (written up by professional geologists of all faiths and all walks of life), to all miraculously have lost their carbon for unknown reasons.



These are the kinds of simple thoughts that young earthers regularly ignore or just dont talk about.

 

[mindlight]

Aside from this claim being likely untrue...

I just want to add that, its funny that young earthers cling to controversial findings made out by fringe religious individuals on very rare occasions. How many thousands of publications have their been on dinosaur bones? Countless.

Meanwhile, if dinosaurs really existed 6000 years ago, every single fossil would contain C-14 and this discussion wouldnt even be happening right now.

Even if young earthers believed that just 1 fossil of the hundreds of thousands found, had C-14, It could be asked why the other 99% of fossils do not have C-14 if they died just recently.

It makes more sense that the 0.00001% find, written up by the religious young earth creationist, is more likely to be false, than the 99.999% of other finds, (written up by professional geologists of all faiths and all walks of life), to all miraculously have lost their carbon for unknown reasons.



These are the kinds of simple thoughts that young earthers regularly ignore or just dont talk about.

You are free to assert inferred speculations on the basis of the facts we know but at the end of the day none of us really know for sure how things happened.

There are an increasing number of finds of soft tissue from Dinosaurs. The strange thing is why any soft tissue is preserved at all - we know there should be no carbon 14 at all after 50000 years let alone millions of years. Only a catastrophic rapid model of fossilisation could really explain this.

http://technology.inquirer.net/62706/dinosaur-fossil-found-to-still-have-skin-and-more
Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones

There are great many ways creatures could have died in the conditions of the flood. Mainly they were probably not instantly buried having fled to higher ground. But rather died , decayed, were pecked apart by the remaining starving animals, insects, microbes, fish and birds before being swept away by the flood waters, sinking through the waters and then later buried in flood sediment. So we have bones and precious little else mostly. But when we have soft tissue preserved this must have happened rapidly and in special circumstances and it is not possible to consider soft tissue surviving over millions of years.

Soft Tissue Fossilization

There is too much we do not know about individual carbon 14 samples. The proportion of parent and daughter isotopes in a sample at start time is an unknown. A consistent rate of decay is also speculated on the basis of decay rates we observe today rather than in the special conditions of the flood. How the opening of the deeps and the earths core to the atmosphere effected the formation of carbon 14 and the plant life on which animals fed before drowning is a complete unknown.

 

[Job 33:6]

Nobody takes answers in genesis seriously. Their articles are flawed in so many ways. And so, i cant take anyone who sources them seriously either. I asked a question of why all dinosaur bones dont contain C-14 if they all died just a couple thousand years ago, and the response i get is the same old same old, fringe, unpublished, questionable, answers in genesis. Its just not credible, and its just not acceptable.

 

[Job 33:6]

And again, I made my own post so that I may actually talk about the science and nobody really has anything to say.

mindlight, you were the only one to even attempt a response. But to be fair, there were many unanswered questions in your response. Many irreconcilable considerations. And instead of actually considering the possibility that the earth is old, they just go back to sourcing answers in genesis again. As if nothing was said.

 

[Job 33:6]

I mean really, look at this source too

http://technology.inquirer.net/62706/dinosaur-fossil-found-to-still-have-skin-and-more

Does anyone see anything wrong with this article?

How about the fact that it says archaeologists are performing research on dinosaurs?

Archaeologists, 99% of the time dont know a thing about paleontology or dinosaurs. I work with archaeologists, they dont study geology or paleontology. Maybe they took an intro course back in their college days. Yet here we have archaeologists who for whatever unknown reason happened to be researching paleontology and just so happened to have the find of the centery?

I mean come on, this is just absurd. You just cant trust these sources.

The person who wrote the article apparently cant decipher the difference between an archaeologist and a paleontologist. And yet some how, their word is trustworthy? Somehow this is a credible source? Its like mistaking a chemist with a biologist.

And further, the article isnt even talking about regular skin as we know it. Ankylosaurs have dense armor for skin. Thats what the article is talking about, its not talking about some soft skin like we might have. Its talking about the preservation of its armor, which doubles as its skin in a plate like form on its back and head.

 

[Job 33:6]

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(17)30808-4

A nodosaurid ankylosaur characterized by the following autapomorphies (∗) and suite of characters [character/state]: cranial: dorsal skull ornamentation expressed as a large hexagonal dermal plate in frontoparietal region [52:1] and multiple (>20) small dermal plates in frontonasal region [21:2]∗

steoderms: cervical and thoracic osteoderms form continuous (abutting) transverse rows completely separated by continuous transverse rows of polygonal basement scales;

http://www.cell.com/cms/attachment/2113832630/2084395283/mmc1.pdf

This isnt skin, like regular everyday skin. Its ankylosaur armor/skin^.

 

[Job 33:6]

And regarding the third source
Shock Dynamics set Plate Tectonics in motion

I mean come on, you think you might be dealing with a scientific source because it has the word geology in the address bar.

Then you see random topics about the shroud of turin, creationism and intelligent design. And even topics about astronomy, as if whoever this person is, is qualified to speak on chemistry, geology, astronomy and biology. Theyre coming in with their blinders on, proposing ideas about some sort of massive conspiracy among scientists. Its just ridiculous.

Meanwhile, here on christian forums we actually have honest scientists trying to hold a discussion, and our posts get ignored.

And while we get ignored, these people who cant even distinguish between paleontologists and archaeologists, are actually being listened to.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

You are free to assert inferred speculations on the basis of the facts we know but at the end of the day none of us really know for sure how things happened.

There are an increasing number of finds of soft tissue from Dinosaurs. The strange thing is why any soft tissue is preserved at all - we know there should be no carbon 14 at all after 50000 years let alone millions of years. Only a catastrophic rapid model of fossilisation could really explain this.

http://technology.inquirer.net/62706/dinosaur-fossil-found-to-still-have-skin-and-more
Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones

There are great many ways creatures could have died in the conditions of the flood. Mainly they were probably not instantly buried having fled to higher ground. But rather died , decayed, were pecked apart by the remaining starving animals, insects, microbes, fish and birds before being swept away by the flood waters, sinking through the waters and then later buried in flood sediment. So we have bones and precious little else mostly. But when we have soft tissue preserved this must have happened rapidly and in special circumstances and it is not possible to consider soft tissue surviving over millions of years.

Soft Tissue Fossilization

There is too much we do not know about individual carbon 14 samples. The proportion of parent and daughter isotopes in a sample at start time is an unknown. A consistent rate of decay is also speculated on the basis of decay rates we observe today rather than in the special conditions of the flood. How the opening of the deeps and the earths core to the atmosphere effected the formation of carbon 14 and the plant life on which animals fed before drowning is a complete unknown.

As I noted in post #322, Miller's C-14 dating of dinosaur bones has a number of serious flaws. He obtained the bones from a natural history museum by misrepresenting his plans for them. The museum told him that the samples were contaminated with shellac (an organic adhesive, which means it's full of carbon and would therefore make the samples unsuited for carbon dating) and he said that it wouldn't matter for their analyses. He then sent the samples to a lab, who told him that the samples lacked collagen (which is typically what is used for carbon dating of bones) and again mentioned that the samples showed heavy contamination. Despite these warnings and knowing that the samples were contaminated, Miller still claimed to have gotten valid dates for the bones.

Regarding soft tissue, I also included a link in that same post to an explanation of how it was preserved due to rapid burial (which, contrary to what you seem to believe, does not require a global flood) and the high iron content of the blood.

 

[mindlight]

Nobody takes answers in genesis seriously. Their articles are flawed in so many ways. And so, i cant take anyone who sources them seriously either. I asked a question of why all dinosaur bones dont contain C-14 if they all died just a couple thousand years ago, and the response i get is the same old same old, fringe, unpublished, questionable, answers in genesis. Its just not credible, and its just not acceptable.

The short answer about the C14 is noone really knows. Evolutionists speculate that it is cause the earth is old but cannot prove that with facts. Creationists say that there are some examples of dinosaurs with C14 which is impossible if these bones are millions of years old. They , like the evolutionists , speculate on why there is no C14 in most bones. Reasons could include a faster rate of decay in the special conditions of the flood, an absence or lower level of C14 in the dinosaurs than other creatures, because the dinosaurs were pecked clean by other creatures before fossilisation etc.

You do realise that for both sides this is a guessing game don't you?

 

[mindlight]

I mean really, look at this source too

http://technology.inquirer.net/62706/dinosaur-fossil-found-to-still-have-skin-and-more

Does anyone see anything wrong with this article?

How about the fact that it says archaeologists are performing research on dinosaurs?

Archaeologists, 99% of the time dont know a thing about paleontology or dinosaurs. I work with archaeologists, they dont study geology or paleontology. Maybe they took an intro course back in their college days. Yet here we have archaeologists who for whatever unknown reason happened to be researching paleontology and just so happened to have the find of the centery?

I mean come on, this is just absurd. You just cant trust these sources.

The person who wrote the article apparently cant decipher the difference between an archaeologist and a paleontologist. And yet some how, their word is trustworthy? Somehow this is a credible source? Its like mistaking a chemist with a biologist.

And further, the article isnt even talking about regular skin as we know it. Ankylosaurs have dense armor for skin. Thats what the article is talking about, its not talking about some soft skin like we might have. Its talking about the preservation of its armor, which doubles as its skin in a plate like form on its back and head.

What that article says to me is that Paleontology is a closed minded profession that would not give the time of the day to out of the box questions that threaten their essential commitment to an old earth and evolution. That creationists resorted to trickery cause that was the only way they could get access to the samples and that they consider the organic carbon surrounding the samples as somehow connected to it( perhaps logically the creatures decayed then mineralised residue).

 

[mindlight]

As I noted in post #322, Miller's C-14 dating of dinosaur bones has a number of serious flaws. He obtained the bones from a natural history museum by misrepresenting his plans for them. The museum told him that the samples were contaminated with shellac (an organic adhesive, which means it's full of carbon and would therefore make the samples unsuited for carbon dating) and he said that it wouldn't matter for their analyses. He then sent the samples to a lab, who told him that the samples lacked collagen (which is typically what is used for carbon dating of bones) and again mentioned that the samples showed heavy contamination. Despite these warnings and knowing that the samples were contaminated, Miller still claimed to have gotten valid dates for the bones.

Regarding soft tissue, I also included a link in that same post to an explanation of how it was preserved due to rapid burial (which, contrary to what you seem to believe, does not require a global flood) and the high iron content of the blood.

I have to admit if even half of that is true it does not look positive for Millers argument here.

 

[Job 33:6]

What that article says to me is that Paleontology is a closed minded profession that would not give the time of the day to out of the box questions that threaten their essential commitment to an old earth and evolution. That creationists resorted to trickery cause that was the only way they could get access to the samples and that they consider the organic carbon surrounding the samples as somehow connected to it( perhaps logically the creatures decayed then mineralised residue).

Here is the truth. And its the same for the whole bacteria salt discussion being held elsewhere in this forum.

Every individual has the ability to go out, collect samples, and submit samples for radioactive dating. There isnt some sort of conspiracy going around where everyone is like, oh no, a young earther gave us this, we have to hide it so nobody sees it.

Its not like that at all.

Typically, the chemists or physicists doing these analyses arent even going to know the nature of the object submitted for dating. You dont have to tell them anything about the samples you submit. And if they reject it on the basis of contamination or a lack of a certain amount of carbon material, its not a conspiracy, its just the way it is.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

The short answer about the C14 is noone really knows. Evolutionists speculate that it is cause the earth is old but cannot prove that with facts.

It's not simple speculation - there is solid evidence of decay rates, and radiometric dating is supported by other, non-radiometric, methods that would be unaffected by any changes in rates. And changes to rates should produce specific evidence - evidence that we don't see.

They , like the evolutionists , speculate on why there is no C14 in most bones. Reasons could include a faster rate of decay in the special conditions of the flood, an absence or lower level of C14 in the dinosaurs than other creatures, because the dinosaurs were pecked clean by other creatures before fossilisation etc.

You do realise that for both sides this is a guessing game don't you?

All of these truly are guessing - there is no evidence at all for them, except for an arbitrary age of the Earth assigned by a human's interpretation of the text of the Bible. Unless you can demonstrate that decay rates could be sufficiently accelerated under reasonable earth-like conditions, propose a mechanism by which only dinosaurs would have lower levels of C-14, or demonstrate that cleaning the flesh from bones would remove all C-14 from them, they are simply guesses.

I have to admit if even half of that is true it does not look positive for Millers argument here.

It's all true. See: https://ncse.com/files/pub/CEJ/pdfs/CEJ_30.pdf

 

[Job 33:6]

I really should take a harder stance in my responses. This isnt a situation where "nobody knows anything, and therefore anyone could be right or wrong".

One side, the old earth side, has authentic evidence. And lots of it. An innumerable number of research documents and studies in support of it, hundreds of thousands. Young earthers in the other hand, have few, scarce, controversial and typically irrelevant forms of research (one guy with contaminated samples).

Its not that the evidence for an old earth is lacking or confusing, it is just that young earthers are incredulous and will not accept even the most full proof evidence.

 

[Dan Brooks]

How is it that Christians seem to accept the word of secular atheistic scientists without question, but question, doubt, and ridicule any Christian source of science? And when the secular scientists say something that disagrees with the Bible, they're still right, and the Bible is either wrong, or else it doesn't really mean what it looks like it means?

 

[Dan Brooks]

I really should take a harder stance in my responses. This isnt a situation where "nobody knows anything, and therefore anyone could be right or wrong".

One side, the old earth side, has authentic evidence. And lots of it. An innumerable number of research documents and studies in support of it, hundreds of thousands. Young earthers in the other hand, have few, scarce, controversial and typically irrelevant forms of research (one guy with contaminated samples).

Its not that the evidence for an old earth is lacking or confusing, it is just that young earthers are incredulous and will not accept even the most full proof evidence.

There only needs to be one source for Christians. The Bible.

 

[Job 33:6]

How is it that Christians seem to accept the word of secular atheistic scientists without question, but question, doubt, and ridicule any Christian source of science? And when the secular scientists say something that disagrees with the Bible, they're still right, and the Bible is either wrong, or else it doesn't really mean what it looks like it means?

Well, I myself am a scientist. As are others here in these forums. Its not about accepting atheistic science. Its about reclaiming Gods science.

 

[Dan Brooks]

Well, I myself am a scientist. As are others here in these forums. Its not about accepting atheistic science. Its about reclaiming Gods science.

Wouldn't God's science agree with His word?