Britain's Oldest House Discovered

[Mr Dave]

On todays evening news was this article (BBC News - Britain's 'oldest house' discovered) which is about an archaeological discovery in Northern England of a house that dates to 10,500-11,000 years ago.

As YECs believe the Earth to be no more than 10,000 years old how do they/you react to news such as this?

 

[matthewgar]

THEY FOUND ADAM AND EVES SUMMER HOME!!!! ahem :> Probably traditional carbon dating or what evr they used for it is wrong :>

 

[marlowe007]

YECs don't typically dispute the existence of Neolithic cultures (although they should), but to them pretty much all dating methods are off-kilter.

The people who lived there would've been postdiluvian Japhethites.

 

[Cabal]

They must have been darn surprised when God made that planet right under their house.

 

[Mallon]

Sumerians Look On In Confusion As God Creates World | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

 

[matthewgar]

Or the video by AronRa on youtube called, "A archeological moment in time." where he shows all of the events happening around the world, on a single day in the neolithic period.

 

[mark kennedy]

Yea I saw ole' AronRa's utube video, the scenes from Conan the barbarian was a nice touch. Generally Bible scholars who take the time line of Genesis seriously can vary that actual time anywhere from 6,000 to 8,500 years. Add to that the problems with radiometric dating and you have world civilization beginning between 8,000 and 10,000 years ago. The Geneaologies of are more of a bloodline, what wikipedia calls Ethnography.

Time lines vary and one of the things that finally turned me against this whole concept of an Old Earth was this;

What can one observe about these results? First and foremost is simply that they are wrong. A correct answer would have been "zero argon" indicating that the sample was too young to date by this method. Instead, the results ranged from 0.35-2.8 million years! Why is this? A good possibility is that solidification of magma does not reset the radioisotope clock to zero. Probably some argon-40 is incorporated from the start into newly formed minerals giving the "appearance" of great age. It should also be noted that there is poor correspondence between the different samples, each taken from the same rock. "Is the Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Really a Million Years Old?​

Most Creationists are into this whereas I am not, they come up with some interesting things. If you are interested in what they actually think instead of childishly mocking them you might learn something here:

There are circumstances that provide opportunities for testing. Dinosaurs which are supposed have lived at least 60 million years ago, should not yield dates of thousands of years. Rocks known to have formed in historical times should not yield dates of millions of years Radiometric Dating​

The radiometric dating is unreliable and the Adamic Genealogy does not provide an exact time line. What is informative is that civilization begins thousands of years ago, not millions as Darwinians would expect from the mythical stone age ape men to early organized societies. Most of them started right around 10,000 years ago which is pretty close to what the Creationist would expect and the Darwinian has no explanation for.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[matthewgar]

Yea I saw ole' AronRa's utube video, the scenes from Conan the barbarian was a nice touch. Generally Bible scholars who take the time line of Genesis seriously can vary that actual time anywhere from 6,000 to 8,500 years. Add to that the problems with radiometric dating and you have world civilization beginning between 8,000 and 10,000 years ago. The Geneaologies of are more of a bloodline, what wikipedia calls Ethnography.

Time lines vary and one of the things that finally turned me against this whole concept of an Old Earth was this;

What can one observe about these results? First and foremost is simply that they are wrong. A correct answer would have been "zero argon" indicating that the sample was too young to date by this method. Instead, the results ranged from 0.35-2.8 million years! Why is this? A good possibility is that solidification of magma does not reset the radioisotope clock to zero. Probably some argon-40 is incorporated from the start into newly formed minerals giving the "appearance" of great age. It should also be noted that there is poor correspondence between the different samples, each taken from the same rock. "Is the Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Really a Million Years Old?​

Most Creationists are into this whereas I am not, they come up with some interesting things. If you are interested in what they actually think instead of childishly mocking them you might learn something here:

There are circumstances that provide opportunities for testing. Dinosaurs which are supposed have lived at least 60 million years ago, should not yield dates of thousands of years. Rocks known to have formed in historical times should not yield dates of millions of years Radiometric Dating​

The radiometric dating is unreliable and the Adamic Genealogy does not provide an exact time line. What is informative is that civilization begins thousands of years ago, not millions as Darwinians would expect from the mythical stone age ape men to early organized societies. Most of them started right around 10,000 years ago which is pretty close to what the Creationist would expect and the Darwinian has no explanation for.

Have a nice day
Mark

Too bad the equipment used was stated that it couldn't date things under 2 million years, and would give inacurate dates. Various dating methods have a minimum ammount of time and maximum time they can be accuratly used to date something. A article on the PRATT.

Young-Earth Creationist 'Dating' of a Mt. St. Helens Dacite: The Failure of Austin and Swenson to Recognize Obviously Ancient Minerals

 

[mark kennedy]

Too bad the equipment used was stated that it couldn't date things under 2 million years, and would give inacurate dates. Various dating methods have a minimum ammount of time and maximum time they can be accuratly used to date something. A article on the PRATT.

Young-Earth Creationist 'Dating' of a Mt. St. Helens Dacite: The Failure of Austin and Swenson to Recognize Obviously Ancient Minerals

Yea I've seen a number of those before, why the geological clock was not set back to zero remains an answered question. I have spent way too much time tracking down these arguments in the Life Sciences to bother with geology. Dr. Austin makes this one brief but important statement:

What can one observe about these results? First and foremost is simply that they are wrong. A correct answer would have been "zero argon" indicating that the sample was too young to date by this method.​

Of course it's too young for that kind of a test. But if you are looking at a geological area where the age is unknown a test like this can give you a false age just like it did in these other locations:

• Hualalai basalt (Hawaii, AD 1800-1801) 1.6 million years ± 0.16
• Mt. Etna basalt (Sicily, AD 1792) 1.41 million years ± 0.08
• Mt. Lassen plagioclase (California, AD 1915) 0.11 million years ± 0.3
• Sunset Crater basalt (Arizona, AD 1064-1065)0.27 million years ± 0.09

There's more, I actually get a kick out of this one:

Another example is found at the Grand Canyon in Arizona. The bottom layers of the canyon are widely held to be about one billion years old, according to evolutionary chronology. One of these layers is the Cardenas Basalt, an igneous rock amenable to radioisotope technology. When dated by the rubidium-strontium isochron method the Cardenas Basalt yielded an "age" of 1.07 billion years, which is in agreement with the evolutionary chronology.3

However, volcanoes of much more recent origin exist on Grand Canyon's north rim. Geologists agree that these volcanoes erupted only thousands of years ago, spilling lava into an already eroded Grand Canyon, even temporarily damming the Colorado River. Rocks from these lava flows have been dated by the same rubidium-strontium isochron method used to date the Cardenas Basalt, giving an "age" of 1.34 billion years.4 This result indicates that the top of the canyon is actually older than the bottom! Such an obviously incorrect and ridiculous "age" speaks eloquently of the great problems inherent in radioisotope dating. (Numerous other radioisotope "ages" are also given.)​

Now you may think I don't take geology and radiometric dating seriously and if you think that you are right. I do know what he is making a valid point, of course it's the wrong dating method but if the earth really is only 10,000 years old then they are all wrong, or at least most of them. I realize this is not even a possibility in the minds of evolutionists and because of that I think they are just organizing the data around their assumptions.

Don't really have the time or patience for geology but this one convinced me that the problems of radiometric dating are clear and sufficient to warrant distrust in them.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[matthewgar]

Actually the artical gives good reasons for the inconsitencies, pretty much every single thing that has a odd reading can usually be summed up as a outside source, wether from the testing equipment or from the material itself. This is why certain types of material are not used, such as seals or snail shells for carbon 14 dating, because of a known effect that causes the dates to be off.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Yea I saw ole' AronRa's utube video, the scenes from Conan the barbarian was a nice touch. Generally Bible scholars who take the time line of Genesis seriously can vary that actual time anywhere from 6,000 to 8,500 years. Add to that the problems with radiometric dating and you have world civilization beginning between 8,000 and 10,000 years ago. The Geneaologies of are more of a bloodline, what wikipedia calls Ethnography.

Time lines vary and one of the things that finally turned me against this whole concept of an Old Earth was this;

What can one observe about these results? First and foremost is simply that they are wrong. A correct answer would have been "zero argon" indicating that the sample was too young to date by this method. Instead, the results ranged from 0.35-2.8 million years! Why is this? A good possibility is that solidification of magma does not reset the radioisotope clock to zero. Probably some argon-40 is incorporated from the start into newly formed minerals giving the "appearance" of great age. It should also be noted that there is poor correspondence between the different samples, each taken from the same rock. "Is the Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Really a Million Years Old?​

Most Creationists are into this whereas I am not, they come up with some interesting things. If you are interested in what they actually think instead of childishly mocking them you might learn something here:

There are circumstances that provide opportunities for testing. Dinosaurs which are supposed have lived at least 60 million years ago, should not yield dates of thousands of years. Rocks known to have formed in historical times should not yield dates of millions of years Radiometric Dating​

The radiometric dating is unreliable and the Adamic Genealogy does not provide an exact time line. What is informative is that civilization begins thousands of years ago, not millions as Darwinians would expect from the mythical stone age ape men to early organized societies. Most of them started right around 10,000 years ago which is pretty close to what the Creationist would expect and the Darwinian has no explanation for.

Have a nice day
Mark

And then there's the societies that existed long before those times...

But I guess that just gets conveniently swept under the rug via the whole "there are no transitional fossils" and "radiometric dating is completely inaccurate unless it agrees with our beliefs" arguments.

 

[shernren]

Yea I've seen a number of those before, why the geological clock was not set back to zero remains an answered question.

What a truthy moment!

 

[Mallon]

It has always confused me why, if radiometric dating really were so inaccurate, different types of radiometric dating methods that use completely different isotopes could ever agree so consistently. Ditto for the compatibility of carbon dating with the dating of tree rings, varves, or ice cores. It doesn't make sense that any of these methods would agree consistently if one of them were wrong.

 

[crawfish]

It has always confused me why, if radiometric dating really were so inaccurate, different types of radiometric dating methods that use completely different isotopes could ever agree so consistently. Ditto for the compatibility of carbon dating with the dating of tree rings, varves, or ice cores. It doesn't make sense that any of these methods would agree consistently if one of them were wrong.

Could it be...hmmmm, let's see...SATAN?!?!?

 

[Mr Dave]

Could it be...hmmmm, let's see...SATAN?!?!?

I'd say no. Satan is able to tempt people, he doesn't have the power to control all dating techniques and set them in line with each other.

 

[Jig]

For someone to believe in the accuracy of radiometric dating they must also subscribe to the philosophical (non-scientific) presumption that decay rates have remained constant over the course of the source materials existence and that little to no contamination occurred - both are scientifically unknowable. Scientists can only assume that their limited observations, within the last 60 years, on measuring radioactive decaying elements can be applied to the vastness of thousands (if not millions) of years. The idea of constant geologic uniformity is primarily theoretical.

 

[Cabal]

For someone to believe in the accuracy of radiometric dating they must also subscribe to the philosophical (non-scientific) presumption that decay rates have remained constant over the course of the source materials existence and that little to no contamination occurred - both are scientifically unknowable. Scientists can only assume that their limited observations, within the last 60 years, on measuring radioactive decaying elements can be applied to the vastness of thousands (if not millions) of years. The idea of constant geologic uniformity is primarily theoretical.

Not even close.

There has been plenty of research into this - the effects of contamination on the results of dating decay chains have been well-established. The various isotopes have also been subjected to extremes of temperature and pressure, as well as a bevy of other environments. There was one change in a decay rate - but not only was it not a dating decay chain, it also decay using a type of emission (beta) that is never used for dating objects. Additionally, the level of change was miniscule, so even if it was used for dating, the date wouldn't even be changed.

 

[Mallon]

Scientists can only assume that their limited observations, within the last 60 years, on measuring radioactive decaying elements can be applied to the vastness of thousands (if not millions) of years.

Actually, you can test that assumption. If the decay rates of different radiometric isotopes were changing independently, then no two dates estimated from the decay of those isotopes should ever agree. The fact that they do, and can be corroborated by other forms of dating (tree rings, ice cores, varves) is strong evidence that the decay rates aren't changing willy-nilly.

 

[matthewgar]

Actually, you can test that assumption. If the decay rates of different radiometric isotopes were changing independently, then no two dates estimated from the decay of those isotopes should ever agree. The fact that they do, and can be corroborated by other forms of dating (tree rings, ice cores, varves) is strong evidence that the decay rates aren't changing willy-nilly.

Precisly, it's not like evry radiometric dating decays at the same rate, for them all to be wrong, but decay at the same speed someone would have to speed up 4*'s as fast, others 2*'s as fast, what coul cause a change in the speeds of decay that wouldn't effect them all to increase at the same speed.

Plus the times that radiometric dating has been changed likly recently have both been small, and a increase in length of time, like the earths age increased by 50 million years or so.

What I find funny though is, creationists will argue on one hand that science presupposes universalism, then turns around and argue that science doesn't assume universalism when it suits them to claim so.

One can't just state, "Well everything we know is wrong because we don't know it's always been this way." It's a weak argument, as there is no reason to presuppose this, except for a need for the information to be wrong because it conflicts with preconcieved ideas. If dating methods are wrong because things were different in the past, instead of looking for small anomolies, go find ways of proving that things were different in the past, or that they would some how change or effect things to create false readings in every testing method.

 

[Jig]

Another problem is that the original number of unstable atoms in the source martial isn’t known. Scientists can measure only how many unstable and stable atoms remain in the source material today.

Yes, it is true that physicists have carefully measured the radioactive decay rates of parent radioisotopes in laboratories and have found them to be essentially constant (within the measurement error margins). And, yes, they have not been able to significantly change these decay rates by heat, pressure, or electrical and magnetic fields. But geologists have assumed these radioactive decay rates have been constant for billions of years. This is an enormous extrapolation of seven orders of magnitude back through immense spans of unobserved time without any concrete proof that such an extrapolation is credible. Many unforeseeable things could have happened - natural and supernatural.