Can an old earth be proven?

[mindlight]

Well, what should be noted, is that we have a good number of radioactive dating methods. Many radioactive decay processes occur within Minerals. It is the minerals that have crystalline structures that are altered by the decay of their constituants.

Radioactivity in Minerals
PSRD: Aluminum-26 Clock
Margarite - Wikipedia
Feldspar - Wikipedia

For example, Aluminum 26 to magnesium 26. Some minerals contain solid elements in their crystal lattices, which are constructed with an order that suits the parent material, kind of like building blocks that stack on one another, or kinects. Then after decay, you are left with abnormal, or alien like inclusions of elements that do not match or fit in the material surrounding them. Imagine having a stack of blocks made of parent material, and inside the lattice of blocks there is a random ball of daughter material that doesnt properly stack or fit anymore because it has decayed and altered its shape.

You might ask, well what does this have to do with carbon dating?

Well a few things.

First off, we're able to establish areas and volumes which have decayed. And we are able to confirm the historic presence of parent isotopes. Which provide minimum ages of objects.

Second, we are able to establish that the daughter isotope is not a product of cross contamination, as it is concealed within the lattice of its parent element.

Third, radioactive dating methods, are typically used in conjunction with one another, to correlate and confirm eachothers finds. Theyre part of a universal science. So discussing other methods of decay is of interest. You cant knock one down without knocking them all down, so when you draw into question radioactive decay as a whole, you ought to approach these methods as a collection.

By establishing one method, we are giving credence to others, in theory.

All of this assumes a constant rate of decay for each type of test. Also these would not apply in the case of trees as in the OP in which Carbon 14 dating would be the only test available unless trees are suddenly made of aluminium or uranium. In these cases where no cross checking is available it remains a valid criticism to suggest that no one knows what the balance between parent and daughter isotopes was in the original sample. Also where multiple tests are available it could simply mean that each test is broadly in synch with an event that prematurely aged the rocks or whatever is being surveyed, that each element being tested were similarly impacted by that event. That they were all impacted a similar amount by whatever cosmic or supernatural event that was would make sense from a creationist point of view. Since we have no way of knowing if decay rates are constant in all conditions or if no supernatural or cosmic event that would have prematurely aged the rocks occurred this still does not provide any certainty about actual ages.

Also even if multiple tests cohere how do you know what the balance was between parent and daughter elements in each of the test applied at the point of origin. If you do not know this balance then integrity between the different results does not make a massive difference in practice. You still would not know if it gave you anything like a helpful age.

 

[mindlight]

Also, just to add, when we talk about the age of life on earth, bones are throughout the succession. And a multitude of dating methods are used throughout the succession as well. So, strictly discussing carbon dating, isnt really enough to understand the age of life itself on earth. One would have to add discussion of correlating dating methods, or even add discussion of how correlating dating methods synchronize with plate tectonics and rates of continental drift.

The broader you make the discussion the more impossible it becomes to prove your assumptions. It simply widens the scope of might bes and what ifs.

 

[Piet Strydom]

Also, just to add, when we talk about the age of life on earth, bones are throughout the succession. And a multitude of dating methods are used throughout the succession as well.

True indeed,
Keep in mind that the Bible never says that the Earth is only 6 to 8000 years old.
This is an assumption made by Creationists.
The genesis description says that the Earth and heavens were made before Time itself existed.
Anyone that say otherwise is incorrect.
now, I do not have any problem with radio decay tests, but I have a problem with the discrepancies in using say 3 tests on the same rock and having a few hundred million years difference.

But, again, it does not concern me in the least to know that the Earth might be 4 billion years old.
the only question I have on these tests is why they do not correspond. (as I say it is not crucial anyhow)

My claim is that the Bible binds itself with the genealogies from Adam to Jesus, and this ads up to 6 000 years.
The only test that can be devised on organisms to determine the age they lived, is C14.
Now, C14 actually proves that life is not older than 6 000 years.
What other tests do we have?

I only know of C14 / C12 ratio.

 

[Piet Strydom]

Also, just to add, when we talk about the age of life on earth, bones are throughout the succession. And a multitude of dating methods are used throughout the succession as well. So, strictly discussing carbon dating, isnt really enough to understand the age of life itself on earth.

However,
If we use any decay test on a rock where certain fossils are found, the tests between rock and fossil will also differ.
Furthermore the age of Zircon in the rock might produce 4 billion years when a fossil next to it will have C14.
This is the main reason why Fossils are not dated by conventional RI dating, but the date of the Rock is used.
RATE also made it very clear that no geologist uses RI Dating to establish the date of a Rock, but rather uses the assumed dating of the Fossils in that strata.
Even if the Fossil is 500 miles away.
Guys, If I speak about the Biblical statements in such a fashion, I will be the laughing stock of the World.
Why do we allow Scientists to get away with this hogwash?

 

[mindlight]

True indeed,
Keep in mind that the Bible never says that the Earth is only 6 to 8000 years old.
This is an assumption made by Creationists.
The genesis description says that the Earth and heavens were made before Time itself existed.
Anyone that say otherwise is incorrect.
now, I do not have any problem with radio decay tests, but I have a problem with the discrepancies in using say 3 tests on the same rock and having a few hundred million years difference.

But, again, it does not concern me in the least to know that the Earth might be 4 billion years old.
the only question I have on these tests is why they do not correspond. (as I say it is not crucial anyhow)

My claim is that the Bible binds itself with the genealogies from Adam to Jesus, and this ads up to 6 000 years.
The only test that can be devised on organisms to determine the age they lived, is C14.
Now, C14 actually proves that life is not older than 6 000 years.
What other tests do we have?

I only know of C14 / C12 ratio.

You know I do not really care if the world is old or young. The bible could support both positions but on the basis of Exodus 20 "in six days God created the heavens and the earth" it seems to me there was no pause between "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" and the 6 days of forming and filling. But if the science about an Old earth were incontrovertible I would have no choice but to review my position and interpretation. But the evidence is not that conclusive really. On one of the main scientific doubts I had answers have arisen in this thread but I am still not that happy about the starlight question. This OP is focused on whether an Old Earth could be proven and as yet no one has proven it.

The discussion on abiogenesis and macroevolution is a separate one but since there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO empirical proof for either and the bible is clear both seem unlikely descriptions of how God did it.

But I do not understand why people keep coming back to radiometric dating as proving anything when there are so many unproven assumptions to it.

 

[Colter]

How do you know whether or not multiple tree rings formed in single years. These rings are after all formed on the basis of temperature shifts and seasonal variations. In a catastrophic turbulent post flood climate that was nutrient rich but lacking competition from other plants we may have seen multiple rings formed in a shorter period of time. Also while there are correlations between live and dead trees the decay and warping in the dead tree remains may make some of these correlations speculative.

There was no flood, that was written for the child like minds of Bronze Age sheep hearders.

 

[Colter]

Then share some of this evidence as is the purpose of this thread.

Parts of the bible are much older than you have said. For example quotes embossed in silver have been dug up from tombs giving a date of the 7th century BC (before the exile)

'Silver scrolls' are oldest O.T. scripture, archaeologist says

Then share some of this evidence as is the purpose of this thread.

Parts of the bible are much older than you have said. For example quotes embossed in silver have been dug up from tombs giving a date of the 7th century BC (before the exile)

'Silver scrolls' are oldest O.T. scripture, archaeologist says

SOME of the OT was in existence prior to the exile. The editing and redacting took place in Babylon.

Dating the Bible - Wikipedia

 

[Colter]

There is no audit trail for samples tested, there is no accounting for contamination. Even with the last century of observations there are statistical variations in the measurement of the half life in different conditions and therefore reasons to doubt the longer term perspective that this has always been a constant. So your trust is misplaced. Regarding what the scriptures say what is old? Thousands of years is old from a real time perspective.



Ok thanks for clarifying which side you are batting for.

I’m on the side of what we can determined to be “true” when discussing scientific observation. The Bible books don’t give ANY citations or references for its claims about ancient history. The people who killed Jesus wrote a very self important story about themselves.

 

[Colter]

Great stuff,
And what the Elba tablets are proving is that the Bible narratives were not some made up story compiled by Jewish scribes 480 BC.
remember your claim:
"...But there is evidence from the ANCIENT SCRIPTURES that there were other people on the earth away from Adam and Eve...

The Elba tablets does not give any such support to your claim.
As a matter of fact, it actually destroyed many Biblical critics who denied the Biblical narratives as fairy tales with no historical evidence.

However it may be...
Please supply me with evidence from ancient scriptures that there were more people created with Adam and Eve.
Are you sure this evidence supports your claim?
Dont you think it actually proves that the historical events portrayed therein was true, seeing that Archaeology only discovered this evidence 2600 years after the closure of the OT canon?
Thank you for your assistance.
Just look at Sodom and Gomorrah for instance.
For 400 years every Bible critic said these cities never existed.
Only to be confirmed by Archaeology!
There are today more than 3000 topographical places confirmed by Archaeology which previously was said to have never existed. The same for people mentioned in the Bible, as well as historical facts such as the destruction of Samaria by Shalmanesser, the existance of the Israel and Judean kings, the prophets, and so on ...

I already provided the proofs from Genesis. Cain feared people out in the world away from his family. But YOU claim Cain was afraid of his sister....... and he went and had sex with her..........and then married her

You ignore science that challenges the claims of the Israelites. Sites exist but the Hebrew authors exaggerated the history associated with them.

 

[NobleMouse]

There are no texts within the Bible (the only authoritative source on this subject) that provide for an old earth (old being to the tune of millions/billions of years). Keep in mind, 6,000+ years is still 'old':

I've read some recent rants here regarding the idea of "pre-Adamite" people, citing Genesis 4:14. To address: besides Cain, Able, and Seth, Adam and Eve had other children (see Genesis 5:4), so yes Cain was afraid of either a brother, sister, nephew, or niece; and yes He would have married either a sister or niece.

It is peculiar when crossing paths with Christians, who go about twisting and distorting scripture so as to try to dislodge people's confidence in the word of God, so that they can reach people with the word of God (I know, makes no sense when actually spoken or written out), but yet I think some here are either exactly that or are decidingly compromising on the integrity of scripture in their desire to be accepted by the academic elite of our society today (going along with what secular science tries to re-write as it's version of the Genesis account). It would be good (maybe even a little convicting) to read/listen to the dialog between Phil Johnson and John MacArthur on this topic as time permits:

Evangelicals, Evolution, and the BioLogos Disaster

I'm not a scientist and so I cannot go into deep technical discussions around what is touted by science, but I think I can 'hold my weight' when it comes to rational thought and while some here may have Ph.D's in various scientific disciplines, I doubt many here have more credentials to speak about the nature of the Hebrew language found in Genesis more so than Dr. Steven W. Boyd (along with various other degrees has a a Th.M. in Old Testament and Semitics from Dallas Theological Seminary, and a M.Phil. and a Ph.D. in Hebraic and Cognate Studies from Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion). While citing his view on Genesis doesn't make it absolutely true (though certainly carries more weight than that of our uneducated opinions here in this forum), he points out in the documentary, Is Genesis History, that all the leading Hebraists in the world recognize Genesis as narrative, factual, and literal (it happened, as it is written). Additional reference, as time permits:

The Biblical Hebrew Creation Account: New Numbers Tell the Story | The Institute for Creation Research

It may be worth re-evaluating why we call ourselves Christians if we don't really agree with what lays the foundation for Christianity). This sounds more like fans: I'm a fan of Christianity - it's a winning team (as God always wins in the end), but like a fan, I may not agree with the coach (God) on all of the plays from His playbook (the Bible). That's a fan, not a follower. God has called us to believe His word (not just the parts we like) - that's what makes a lukewarm believer (see Revelation 3:16).

I don't mean this to come across as arrogantly pious. I am a poor helpless sinner seeing other poor helpless sinners and it appears that some may be drifting away. God bless.

 

[Open Heart]

Hi Open Heart.

I also thought that Ice layers will be evidence I could use against Creationists when I was still an Atheist.
Untill I read about the squadron that was lost in Greenland.
The lost squadron - creation.com
By the way, when I read about this article, it was in the late 1980's and it was not published in any Creationist magazines at that time.
over the years I followed the answers and Questions given by everyone pro and against the ice Age dating, and I am disgusted at the Atheist answers.
One actually tried to claim that the place where the planes were landed is not the same as where Ice cores are sourced.
I do not have the exact research for the other factor that made me realize that Ice Core Dating is a hoax, but it actually proved that organic matter contained in 100 000 years ice also had C14 present.
Highly unlikely indeed.

This proves nothing. When planes crash land, they penetrate layers of ice.

 

[NobleMouse]

However,
If we use any decay test on a rock where certain fossils are found, the tests between rock and fossil will also differ.
Furthermore the age of Zircon in the rock might produce 4 billion years when a fossil next to it will have C14.
This is the main reason why Fossils are not dated by conventional RI dating, but the date of the Rock is used.
RATE also made it very clear that no geologist uses RI Dating to establish the date of a Rock, but rather uses the assumed dating of the Fossils in that strata.
Even if the Fossil is 500 miles away.
Guys, If I speak about the Biblical statements in such a fashion, I will be the laughing stock of the World.
Why do we allow Scientists to get away with this hogwash?

Ha, yes I dare say bible-believing Christians wouldn't even wash their hogs wish such nonsense. Hey, if we REALLY want to know what happened at creation, how about we ask the Creator. What does He say in His book? He says 6 days plus about 4,000ish years until Christ and that was about 2,000 years ago. How do we know these are days and not ages? See post 170 and link regarding The Biblical Hebrew Creation Account (by Dr. Steven W. Boyd). Keep up the good fight and spreading the truth brother!

 

[Piet Strydom]

I don't mean this to come across as arrogantly pious. I am a poor helpless sinner seeing other poor helpless sinners and it appears that some may be drifting away. God bless.

Well, I am impressed with your post.
Well said.

 

[Piet Strydom]

This proves nothing. When planes crash land, they penetrate layers of ice.

Realy?
The description of the crew was that they landed on top of the Ice. The first plane had its nose dug into a few feet snow, but did not penetrate the ice.
Do you know how hard the ice layers are within a meter from the top?
And the planes were of Aluminium.
Secondly, the planes was dug out of 75 meters of ice. For the US people, that is over 350 Feet!
They could not dig it out, but melted it out of the ice.
Anyhow, the ice layers represented about 800 years in stead of 42 years.
Check mate to ice cores!

 

[Piet Strydom]

I get the idea that not a lot of people knows about Immanuel KanT, and the Nebular theory.
Please help me so I can create a thread on the origins of the Universe to allow the info to be scrutinised by the members on this forum.
How do I do it?

 

[Piet Strydom]

heck, I got it.
I made a thread called origins of the Universe and Science.
I will be posting there for the remainder of my stay.

 

[Piet Strydom]

There was no flood, that was written for the child like minds of Bronze Age sheep hearders.

So, You say when Jesus mentioned the flood, (Matthew 24:38-39),(Luke 17:27), he was in a child like mind of a bronze age sheep header?
Which Jesus do you believe in Colter.
Mine is the one who said that all the prophets of old spoke about him and He knew Abraham.
it seems as if you are perhaps a sheep in wolf's clothing?
I have never met a Christian that does not believe in the Bible.
Please clarify your standpoint.
Do you accept Jesus as God the Creator who revealed Himself as the Word of God, who came to earth and took a human body Who gave His Human life for your salvation?

 

[Open Heart]

Secondly, the planes was dug out of 75 meters of ice. For the US people, that is over 350 Feet!
They could not dig it out, but melted it out of the ice.
Anyhow, the ice layers represented about 800 years in stead of 42 years.
Check mate to ice cores!

Really? The thickness condenses as the weight of new snow gathers on top. You have to visually look for layers, not measure by feet or meters.

 

[Piet Strydom]

Really? The thickness condenses as the weight of new snow gathers on top. You have to visually look for layers, not measure by feet or meters.

But why did you say the planes penetrated layers of Ice?
And, on this particular glacier they landed there was not a lot of snow to penetrate.
it was Ice layers after 42 years of snow.
The planes were damaged considerably due to Ice accretion.
Furthermore, Why dont you hear about the Scientists discarding the first 75 meters of Ice in their cores?
They count all the layers of Ice, from the day they collected it.
Naaaa, I am totally convinced that there are too many errors of interpretation in such science.

 

[Open Heart]

So, You say when Jesus mentioned the flood, (Matthew 24:38-39),(Luke 17:27), he was in a child like mind of a bronze age sheep header?
Which Jesus do you believe in Colter.
Mine is the one who said that all the prophets of old spoke about him and He knew Abraham.
it seems as if you are perhaps a sheep in wolf's clothing?
I have never met a Christian that does not believe in the Bible.
Please clarify your standpoint.
Do you accept Jesus as God the Creator who revealed Himself as the Word of God, who came to earth and took a human body Who gave His Human life for your salvation?

Are you going to answer my question?