Old Rocks

[hiscosmicgoldfish2]

..

 

[Van]

A newer method for Carbon 14 dating (AMS) can date very small samples. So the method was used to date some cave art pigment. And volia, the age was found to be between 10,000 years and 15,000 years.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the AMS method found C14 in coal. This was repeated by several labs, coal can be dated from about 30,000 years to about 60,000 years. Since the coal is supposedly millions of years old, this presents a problem. The answer offered, or at least one of them, is that radioactive decay of uranium or thorium in the nearby granite, created "fresh" C14. Nevermind there is not enough nitrogen in the area to support the idea, evolutionists often invent concepts to dismiss data that does not fit.

Anyway, my unsupported idea is perhaps something is in the caves to throw off the dating here too? I would sure like a solid idea that invalidates the apparent age of the cave paintings or lowers it to less than 6000 years ago.

 

[Van]

Here is an interesting blurb on old diamonds:

While the rock in which diamonds are found may be 50 to 1,600 million years old, the diamonds themselves are approximately 3.3 billion years old. This discrepancy is because the volcanic magma that solidifies into rock where diamonds are found did not create them, but only transported the diamonds from the Earth's mantle to the surface. Diamonds also may be formed under the high pressures and temperatures at the site of meteorite impacts. The diamonds formed during an impact may be relatively 'young', but some meteorites contain star dust, debris from the death of a star, which may include diamond crystals. One such meteorite is known to contain tiny diamonds over 5 billion years old. These diamonds are older than our solar system!

Conceptually, then the pre-solar nebula could have contained aggregates with ticking atomic clocks that were not fully reset when the earth was formed.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish2]

A newer method for Carbon 14 dating (AMS) can date very small samples. So the method was used to date some cave art pigment. And volia, the age was found to be between 10,000 years and 15,000 years.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the AMS method found C14 in coal. This was repeated by several labs, coal can be dated from about 30,000 years to about 60,000 years. Since the coal is supposedly millions of years old, this presents a problem. The answer offered, or at least one of them, is that radioactive decay of uranium or thorium in the nearby granite, created "fresh" C14. Nevermind there is not enough nitrogen in the area to support the idea, evolutionists often invent concepts to dismiss data that does not fit.

Anyway, my unsupported idea is perhaps something is in the caves to throw off the dating here too? I would sure like a solid idea that invalidates the apparent age of the cave paintings or lowers it to less than 6000 years ago.

Interesting post there.. About the coal as well.. I knew it wasn't millions o.y.o. and neither is oil. I can't answer your question tho. Interesting about the C14 for the Turin Shoud as well.. that date was taken as gospel, for a medieval shroud fake.. then someone says that the shroud was burnt.. = carbon? in the smoke maybe? Where did you find the coal date thing? I've been wondering about that for years.. dating coal.. could get no answer on that site.. talkorigins.. they said I was ignorant, but it wasn't meant as in insult, they just know better than I do, because they are professionals, scientists dedicated to truth and science and that..
And all I could get was that coal can't be carbon dated, because it dosn't work over 20,000 years I think it was.. and of course we all know that coal is millions of years old..
If I had to bet on it.. I would say that the flood was about 12,000 years ago. And that the dates of the generations misses out some people because they are not worthy to record.. being a record of religion, not a dating system.. and in my mind the coal is definately due to the flood.. but who knows.. if that date for coal is reliable, it means take it from that date... ? ...

Conceptually, then the pre-solar nebula could have contained aggregates with ticking atomic clocks that were not fully reset when the earth was formed.

I dont believe in a pre-solar nebula, but that's just me.. Do you know about the 'lack of supernova' theory? it's a good one.. and the 'moon is leaving earth orbit' that's another good one.. explain that one evolutionists.. how could you?.. that it started at some point to less in it's orbit, but after a few hundred million years? I don't know...

 

[Van]

Hi Hiscosmicgoldfish, let me take them one at a time.

Just Google "AMS coal dating" and you will find several articles from both sides which agree that the coal dates to 30,000 to 60,000 years. And you will find efforts to explain away the presence of C14 when , if the coal was actually millions of years old would have decayed away. None of these "explain away" efforts stands up to study.

For example, why is the earth volcanic? The heat of formation should have cooled away, if the earth is billions of years old. The answer invented is hidden heat sources, for which we have no evidence. That is not an explanation.

The Moon receding is a good argument for the earth not being 4 or more billion years old, but does not indicate that the earth could not be close to 1 billion years old.

In the same way, folks say the decay of Uranium and Thorium give off neutrons which interact with nitrogen to form N14 which then decays to C14. The problem is there is not enough nitrogen too create the C14 present in coal.

And the "missing generations" might move the date back a few hundred years, but not thousands of years. Remember the 14 generations from Jesus to David. That works out to an average of less than 100 years per generation. Those that offer this explanation have no basis for why there were no or very view "missing generations" in the first part of the list, but there were in the rest of the list. Sorry, but that dog will not hunt.

The lack of supernova story does not hold up. Meteriorites contain nanodiamonds that date to at least 5 billion years, before the solar system formed. Therefore these shiny bits of "star dust" support the idea that our pre-solar nebula did indeed contain ejecta from one or more supernovas.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish2]

Hi Hiscosmicgoldfish, let me take them one at a time.

Just Google "AMS coal dating" and you will find several articles from both sides which agree that the coal dates to 30,000 to 60,000 years. And you will find efforts to explain away the presence of C14 when , if the coal was actually millions of years old would have decayed away. None of these "explain away" efforts stands up to study.

For example, why is the earth volcanic? The heat of formation should have cooled away, if the earth is billions of years old. The answer invented is hidden heat sources, for which we have no evidence. That is not an explanation.

The Moon receding is a good argument for the earth not being 4 or more billion years old, but does not indicate that the earth could not be close to 1 billion years old.

In the same way, folks say the decay of Uranium and Thorium give off neutrons which interact with nitrogen to form N14 which then decays to C14. The problem is there is not enough nitrogen too create the C14 present in coal.

And the "missing generations" might move the date back a few hundred years, but not thousands of years. Remember the 14 generations from Jesus to David. That works out to an average of less than 100 years per generation. Those that offer this explanation have no basis for why there were no or very view "missing generations" in the first part of the list, but there were in the rest of the list. Sorry, but that dog will not hunt.

The lack of supernova story does not hold up. Meteriorites contain nanodiamonds that date to at least 5 billion years, before the solar system formed. Therefore these shiny bits of "star dust" support the idea that our pre-solar nebula did indeed contain ejecta from one or more supernovas.

I still dont get why the supernova theory dosn't hold up.. I am just a 'layman' on this, but they say that basically there are a few hundred supernova remnants observed, and when you calculate the life-cycle of various stars, and the supposed age of the universe, it dosn't add up.. there should be many more. I just watched Kent Hovinds videos on Google video.. that's where I saw the moon orbit theory.. I havn't as yet seen anyone challenge him on that one..
Ok so the missing generations theory isn't good.. the usual thing i find when reading the ''countering the heat of the earth's core and magnetic field strength decay'', is an internal process which self-generates, or flips the magnetic field.. and i cant argue over it because i don't know enough about it, but there is usually pages of information saying how and why.. I was also impressed by the evidence from coral as a method of dating, but i've forgotton now what the argument is..
I have found the YEC argument about the earth being created before the stars as .. 'now come on, that's just silly' so i had a look at genesis again, and plain reading.. what does it say.. and yes it does say that.. and Hugh Ross's idea of 'perspective of the reader' dosn't work, when you read the text plainly.. so Kent Hovind says that the orbits of the planets should all be going the same way, i don't know about that...
Another thing that i noticed when re-reading genesis was that .. all reptiles were to eat vegetation.. and all the other animals.. that's what it actually says..
In my humble there can't be a pre-Adamic race, because that would invalidate the fall of mankind, which constructs the biblical message..
unless it's totally alegorical, and Adam was the first human from the region of Armenia, who founded the race of humans that became the main peoples of the earth.. but that there were other people in Africa before that? I had a quick look at the various peoples that decended from the Ark survivors.. and as far as I'm aware, it dosn't mention the Africans.. except for the north Africans and Phoenicians, but I am probably wrong on that one..
I don't know if the Adam-Eve story is alegorical or not, a literal reading is easy, you just take it for what it says and that's it.. I suspect it is alegorical, because of the leaving in of the 2nd creation account, as when studied closely, contradicts the first account.. so the writers knew that it was counter.. but left it in anyway.. because the first account gives the message of the fall from grace.. which leads to the restoration and the 'grand plan'..
I'll have a look at that coal dating..

 

[Van]

Lets take a few more, one at a time. The lack of supernova remnants argues that the Universe is not as old as 14-18 billion years, but does not support that the solar system is not millions or billions of years old. The fact that "star dust" makes up part of our solar system is demonstrated by the 5 billion year old nanodiamonds found is some meteorites.

Again, the receding moon argument argues against the formation and orbit of the moon for billions of years, but does not argue against the moon being in orbit for nearly 1 billion years.

Now if the moon has been slowing down the earth's spin for 4 billion years it would be much further away. Therefore also we can conclude the moon/earth interaction has not be the source of heating within the earth for 4 billion years. Therefore that idea does not supply the answer to why the earth is still so hot internally. If you read the "explain away" arguments, you will see they allude to "nuclear heat sources" for which there is absolutely no evidence.

The coral argument supports an earth of millions of years old, not billions.

Genesis does not say the stars were created after the earth. It says He made the stars also and they gave light to the earth on the fourth day. The same day the sun and the moon started giving light to the earth. So the cloud of dust making the earth dark being blown away when our sun went nuclear is a possible if unlikely "explain away" the conflict with science over the order of formation of the stars.

The only humans on Noah's ark were Noah and his seven relatives, his wife, his three sons, and their wives.

The best way to understand the Bible is to just take it as it reads. You only need to look for alternate meanings when the plain meaning does not make sense because it seems to conflict with other parts of the Bible. And one important point is use a translation that is understandable, such as the English Standard Version (ESV), the New King James Version (NKJV), or the NIV (New International Version.) I use the most recent version of the New American Standard Version for study, but I read the NIV because it is easier for me to read.

Last point, the bible does not tell us exactly how God created the universe, and we do not know. That is the message of Job 38. And our goal in bible study is to grow more like Jesus, not fit science and the bible together. That can be a hobby but should not hinder our service to our Lord.

Goodbye, and God bless

Van

 

[keyarch]

Genesis does not say the stars were created after the earth. It says He made the stars also and they gave light to the earth on the fourth day.

Hi Van! I agree with the first sentence, but not the second. In reference to Genesis 1:16, most translations add the words "He made" with reference to the stars. The correct translation from the Hebrew would be "also (or with)" stars. Meaning that when we look at the moon ruling the night, we see the stars also. Please look at the following interlinear comparison.

 

[Van]

Here is an idea that might explain why the cave paintings date before 6000 years ago. What if the pigment was contaminated? Now a cave is dark, and the paintings were done before electric lights were available. So what lit the wall? How about a fire burning something old like coal? Would not the smoke mix with the wet pigment and contaminate the sample? Seems like a possible explanation to me.

Does anyone have actual data on this topic?

 

[keyarch]

Here is an idea that might explain why the cave paintings date before 6000 years ago. What if the pigment was contaminated? Now a cave is dark, and the paintings were done before electric lights were available. So what lit the wall? How about a fire burning something old like coal? Would not the smoke mix with the wet pigment and contaminate the sample? Seems like a possible explanation to me.

Does anyone have actual data on this topic?

Biblically, the caves would have been formed AFTER the global flood, or existing ones submerged, such that any current evidence would be no older than roughly 4,400 years ago. I believe the minerals to be OLD and the pigment young (if biological) mixed with old, so that you will not get accurate readings on any of it. What we can conclude is that the painters were from the tribes that dispersed after the flood. Given the mixture of materials, I don't see how one could ever get "actual data" that could prove anything different.

 

[juvenissun]

Here is an interesting blurb on old diamonds:


Conceptually, then the pre-solar nebula could have contained aggregates with ticking atomic clocks that were not fully reset when the earth was formed.

I don't know if any meteorite would contained diamond before its impact with anything. If the meteorite is a planetary fragment, I guess it is possible.

And the suggestion (fact?) that meteorite impact could make micro-diamond is interesting. How large (small) could the diamond be made in such environment? And if people needed to date inclusions in such a tiny diamond, I wonder if any existing dating system could do that.

Also, I don't think diamond can be dated directly. So the age of inclusions in diamond MUST have be reset to a time (much) later than the diamond crystallization.

Dating of diamond, hmm... May be it is something to look into. Hey, Van, thanks for the motivation.

 

[Van]

Lets say a star blew up 4.5 billion years ago. The pressure and temperature of the supernova fused together heavy elements like Uranium. Now these particles were ejected from the location of the prior star and drifted into our presolar nebula. Now when the earth formed, say 1 billion years ago, the accretion included these rocks that date to the supernova because of the Uranium decay chain. And so when we date the formation of the earth, we are actually dating the formation of the minerals formed at the time of the supernova. Thus old rocks could make the earth appear older than it is. That is the theory, but is it true? I do not know.

 

[juvenissun]

Lets say a star blew up 4.5 billion years ago. The pressure and temperature of the supernova fused together heavy elements like Uranium. Now these particles were ejected from the location of the prior star and drifted into our presolar nebula. Now when the earth formed, say 1 billion years ago, the accretion included these rocks that date to the supernova because of the Uranium decay chain. And so when we date the formation of the earth, we are actually dating the formation of the minerals formed at the time of the supernova. Thus old rocks could make the earth appear older than it is. That is the theory, but is it true? I do not know.

This may be true to some meteorites, asteroids or comets. But the earth is too big. So the original material should be melted in the reshaping process (the mainstream idea). That should reset all dating systems.

This is just my guess. I haven't got time to study this issue.

 

[Van]

One thing is for sure, your guess is as good as mine.