Evidence for an earth much older than 6,000 years

[RickG]

There are many lines of evidence that show our Earth to be much older than 6,000 years of age.

Many people of aware of radiometric dating methods, but few actually have any idea how they work, or how many different radiometric dating methods there really are. Never mind that when the same sample when tested with different isotopes and methods all give the same dates. That just doesn’t happen by chance, it works on well understood physics.

There are also many non-radiometric methods and techniques that also agree with one another and the radiometric methods as well.

I would like to know what methods people here in the CF are familiar with or would like to know more about.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

I would appreciate schooling on the details of radiometric dating. I understand the basics, but would appreciate knowing more about the various techniques, what data is actually collected, how the data is numerically analysed, etc.

 

[NailsII]

Shock horror - what are we gonna do!

Err, hold on - is it 6,500 years old?

That would be ok, wouldn't it!

 

[RickG]

I would appreciate schooling on the details of radiometric dating. I understand the basics, but would appreciate knowing more about the various techniques, what data is actually collected, how the data is numerically analysed, etc.

That's a rather broad request, there's not a one shoe fits all. Let's start with some basics you may or may not be familiar with. There are several types of decay but there are three main ones that lend themselves best to radiometric dating; alpha, beta and gamma.

(1) In alpha decay a nucleus emits an alpha particle consisting of two protons and two neutrons. Nuclides that emit alpha particles lose both mass and positive charge. As a result, the atomic mass changes and the result is a chemical element changes to another.

(2) I beta decay a different type of particle is ejected, an electron. In this, the ejection of a negatively charged electron does not alter the mass and therefore, no change in atomic mass. However, there is a change in atomic number because the reason for ejection of the electron is that the nucleus decays, a neutron transmutes into a proton.

(3) In gamma decay, the nucleus does not emit a particle, but rather a highly energetic from of electromagnetic radiation, gamma rays. Gamma decay does not alter the number of protons or neutrons in the nucleus, but it does reduce the energy of the nucleus.

 

[SkyWriting]

There are many lines of evidence that show our Earth to be much older than 6,000 years of age. <snip>

No matter really. In the Garden of Eden fruit is growing on trees that are planted in dirt that likely is resting on cool bedrock. All these signs point to the earth showing an age of at least a few years old at the time of Creation Week. So scripture does not support a "Young Earth".

Even though various people have totaled up the years described in the scriptures and come to the conclusion that the earth must be young, the Bible doesn't support the conclusion that it should look 6000 years old.

According to the scriptures, it would be aged and ready for use on the day it was Created. How that would be....I dunno. But that's how it reads. It is what it is.

Many people of aware of radiometric dating methods, but few actually have any idea how they work, or how many different radiometric dating methods there really are. Never mind that when the same sample when tested with different isotopes and methods all give the same dates. That just doesn&#8217;t happen by chance, it works on well understood physics.

But lets not lie here. All methods don't give the same dates. In fact, the opposite is true. Various methods give numbers all over the board. The ones that are closest to the "accepted" dates are considered to be the useful methods for that particular sample. Other methods that don't match at all are considered to be the wrong type of test for that sample.

You may be used to reading about matching methods. Simply because the ones that don't match are conveniently left out of the final papers. What kind of a goof would provide contradictory information on expensive testing that few can retest?

 

[USincognito]

No matter really. In the Garden of Eden fruit is growing on trees that are planted in dirt...

Do you know what "dirt" is and how it comes to be?

But lets not lie here. All methods don't give the same dates. In fact, the opposite is true. Various methods give numbers all over the board. The ones that are closest to the "accepted" dates are considered to be the useful methods for that particular sample. Other methods that don't match at all are considered to be the wrong type of test for that sample.

You may be used to reading about matching methods. Simply because the ones that don't match are conveniently left out of the final papers. What kind of a goof would provide contradictory information on expensive testing that few can retest?

Dang, there went another irony meter.

 

[USincognito]

There are also many non-radiometric methods and techniques that also agree with one another and the radiometric methods as well.

Palynology is a very interesting non-radiometric method that I think the readers of this thread will find interesting.
Palynology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Split Rock]

But lets not lie here. All methods don't give the same dates. In fact, the opposite is true. Various methods give numbers all over the board. The ones that are closest to the "accepted" dates are considered to be the useful methods for that particular sample. Other methods that don't match at all are considered to be the wrong type of test for that sample.

You may be used to reading about matching methods. Simply because the ones that don't match are conveniently left out of the final papers. What kind of a goof would provide contradictory information on expensive testing that few can retest?

No. You must really think geologists are idiots. First of all, how does one come up with an "accepted" date to begin with? The earth doesn't need to be 4.5-4.6 billion years old. It could be older or younger, and it wouldn't mess any science up. Secondly, the error on measurements that are rejected is generally large. A number with a large error indicates an inconsistant and/or inaccurate measurement. There are methods to determine if there are problems with a sample, such as isochron dating. As I have said before, radiometric dating isn't for amatures, but it isn't for liars or fools either.

 

[RickG]

But lets not lie here. All methods don't give the same dates. In fact, the opposite is true. Various methods give numbers all over the board. The ones that are closest to the "accepted" dates are considered to be the useful methods for that particular sample. Other methods that don't match at all are considered to be the wrong type of test for that sample.

I believe you have a misunderstanding of what I said. I'll elaborate a bit more. Most rocks contain more than one radionuclide which can be used for determining a date. Those nuclides which have a half-life that lend themselves within the age of the sample can be independently determined.

Here's an example. Say I test a rock using the K/Ar method and get a date of 1 million years +/- 35,000 years. I could also use the Ar/Ar method and it would give the same general date. Knowing that I have confirmed the general date of the rock, I could also employ other methods that lend themselves to that date range. Some of those would be Electron Spin Resonance and Fission tracking. What I could not use would be Lead 210 or Caesium 137 because those methods do not lend themselves to that date range.

You may be used to reading about matching methods. Simply because the ones that don't match are conveniently left out of the final papers. What kind of a goof would provide contradictory information on expensive testing that few can retest?

Now you are making a totally false and unsubstantiated accusations. Inaccurate dates do turn up ocassionally but dates are not rejected on the basis of they are inconvenient. Regardless of what type of data is being collected, all data goes through rigorous statistical analysis to verify its accuracy.

Are you familiar with error bars? Through statistical analysis a standard error is calculated and you will see this reported in all published peer review research. Simply put, wide error bars show poor accuracy (reliability) while narrow error bars show good accuracy (reliability). Nevertheless here's an example:

http://www.liv.ac.uk/~jan/teaching/References/Chen%20et%20al.%201997.pdf

Look at the graph on page 5 of the paper. Note that there are two different dating methods used, carbon-14 (the dots) and thermoluminescense (TL), the triangles. After each date is also given a +/- number. That +/- number shows the standard error, of if you prefer, the accuracy of the date. All scientific data is reported that way.

If anything is thrown out, it is because it isn't statistically significant, not because it is inconvenient.

 

[RickG]

Palynology is a very interesting non-radiometric method that I think the readers of this thread will find interesting.
Palynology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now that is one that is not know by many, especially layman. I didn't even recognize it until I begin reading the article. The identification of specific pollen species and it abundance or lack there of is important in determining paleoclimates. Also oddly enough, pollen ratio variations in ice cores are one of several ways of identifying annual layers.

 

[Delta77]

There are many lines of evidence that show our Earth to be much older than 6,000 years of age.

Many people of aware of radiometric dating methods, but few actually have any idea how they work, or how many different radiometric dating methods there really are. Never mind that when the same sample when tested with different isotopes and methods all give the same dates. That just doesn’t happen by chance, it works on well understood physics.

There are also many non-radiometric methods and techniques that also agree with one another and the radiometric methods as well.

I would like to know what methods people here in the CF are familiar with or would like to know more about.

okay so here is a thought. when God created adam did he create him as a baby or as a man? he created him as a man. poof. if you would have done your radiometric dating on him how old would he be? it probably would have shown like 20yr or something. well God can do the same thing with the universe.
also the earths magnetic field gives the opposite conclusion based on scientific research. so you might want to check into that.

 

[RickG]

okay so here is a thought. when God created adam did he create him as a baby or as a man? he created him as a man. poof. if you would have done your radiometric dating on him how old would he be? it probably would have shown like 20yr or something. well God can do the same thing with the universe.
also the earths magnetic field gives the opposite conclusion based on scientific research. so you might want to check into that.

The only effect the earth's magnetic field would have on any dating method would be those of cosmogenic origin, which is well studied and understood, i.e. the 14C calibration curve. As for comments about Adam and what God can do, please, let's stay on topic and discuss the science. Thanks.

 

[Delta77]

The only effect the earth's magnetic field would have on any dating method would be those of cosmogenic origin, which is well studied and understood, i.e. the 14C calibration curve. As for comments about Adam and what God can do, please, let's stay on topic and discuss the science. Thanks.

mh. my comment about Adam basically shows that while the earth might be millions of years old. according to the Bible it still could have been only around for about 10,000 years or so.
also i brought up the earths magnetic field as something you might want to look into because its interesting. i don't know if it has anything to the radioactive dating stuff you are talking about....and im not nearly as smart as you so its highly unlikely that i will be able to argue anything. so you will have to do your own research on it =D cheers

 

[RickG]

mh. my comment about Adam basically shows that while the earth might be millions of years old. according to the Bible it still could have been only around for about 10,000 years or so.
also i brought up the earths magnetic field as something you might want to look into because its interesting. i don't know if it has anything to the radioactive dating stuff you are talking about....and im not nearly as smart as you so its highly unlikely that i will be able to argue anything. so you will have to do your own research on it =D cheers

I am well aware that Young Earth proponents generally give a range of the Earth being from 6-10 thousand years of age due to the genealogies and genealogical gaps in the bible. Should Adams bones be miraculously discovered, they would be dated most likely with the radiocarbon dating method. As for Earths magnetic field, I "will have to do" my "own research on it", I have been do so for over 30 years. Like medical doctors, I keep practicing.

 

[USincognito]

okay so here is a thought. when God created adam did he create him as a baby or as a man? he created him as a man. poof. if you would have done your radiometric dating on him how old would he be? it probably would have shown like 20yr or something. well God can do the same thing with the universe.
also the earths magnetic field gives the opposite conclusion based on scientific research. so you might want to check into that.

The problem with the appearance if age argument is that it ignores the real problem for YECs - what we see is not only the appearance of age, but of history.

To stick with the Adam analogy, what would it say about God if Adam were created appearing 20 years old, but missing tonsils that were taken out when he was 12, scars from where he skinned his knee at 4, healed radius from where he broke his arm at 15, etc. etc.?

 

[Delta77]

The same would apply if we did the same tests on say,
One of Santa's Reindeer.
The three bears porridge.
The house that Jack built.
Jack's beanstalk.
However as with Adam the readings could only be as old as the stories themselves.

Hypothetical questions will only ever give hypothetical answers.

true enough. if you dont believe the Bible then everything i said was bogus anyway. really what i was getting at is that if you do believe the Bible then it is scientifically supported. im saying that science and the Bible go hand in hand. however if we do prove the Bible is wrong then the whole "God" thing gets thrown out the window and you win =D still from the looks of it as we get more scientific research it seems that people are drawing the conclusion that there probably was Intelligent design. but we shall see =D

 

[Delta77]

The problem with the appearance if age argument is that it ignores the real problem for YECs - what we see is not only the appearance of age, but of history.

To stick with the Adam analogy, what would it say about God if Adam were created appearing 20 years old, but missing tonsils that were taken out when he was 12, scars from where he skinned his knee at 4, healed radius from where he broke his arm at 15, etc. etc.?

I don't quite understand what you are getting at. what do you mean about the "adam analogy''?

 

[RickG]

true enough. if you dont believe the Bible then everything i said was bogus anyway. really what i was getting at is that if you do believe the Bible then it is scientifically supported. im saying that science and the Bible go hand in hand. however if we do prove the Bible is wrong then the whole "God" thing gets thrown out the window and you win =D still from the looks of it as we get more scientific research it seems that people are drawing the conclusion that there probably was Intelligent design. but we shall see =D

The bible has nothing to do with science. The book of Genesis has a number of conflicts with scientific facts. I think most Christians, as I do, reconcile this by understanding that the stories in Genesis are wonderful allegories, not literal fact. And regardless of what one believes with respect to that, is it going to have any effect on anyone's salvation? I think not.

 

[USincognito]

I don't quite understand what you are getting at. what do you mean about the "adam analogy''?

You're using Adam being created with an appearance of age despite not being that age as an analogy to the Earth being created with the appearance of age despite not being that age.

My point is that it doesn't work because the earth has the appearance of history as well as age and, since Adam's apparance was an analogy, I'm using him in the context of having history as well as age.

 

[Delta77]

The bible has nothing to do with science. The book of Genesis has a number of conflicts with scientific facts. I think most Christians, as I do, reconcile this by understanding that the stories in Genesis are wonderful allegories, not literal fact. And regardless of what one believes with respect to that, is it going to have any effect on anyone's salvation? I think not.

Too true I don't think its going to effect anyone's salvation!