Problems with a 6000 year old earth.

[Arikay]

(I made some changes to this, but I havent changed it in awhile so please point out any spots that need a bit of change. I am posting this as I mention in another thread to Sun.)

Hello,

This goes along with another post about flood models, I thought I would take a look at the model of a 6000 year old earth and universe that is the basis of YEC beliefs. This is based on the calculations Ussher made in the mid 1600s based on the chronology of the people and events as written in the bible. For more information on Ussher, http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/ussher.htm
Usshers figures make the earth around 6006 years old (as the first day of creation is given as Oct 23rd 4004 BC) and the flood around 4352 years ago. So Ussher’s dates put creation on 4004 BC and the flood around 2349 BC.

I want to go over a few of the problems with these dates, some common creationist answers to the problems and a response to the answers.

Problems:

• Tree ring Data.
- The oldest living tree found so far is "Methuselah," a Bristlecone Pine that is 4,768 years old. This is around 416 years older than the date of the supposed global flood.
- None of the trees in that area (or other areas) show signs of a massive flood catastrophe in their tree rings around the same time.
- The bristlecone Pine rings have been dated back around 9,000 years. 3,000 years older than the date of creation.
For more information about the Bristlecone Pine and Tree Ring dating: http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/intro.html

•Creationist Responses to Tree ring data.
1) Appearance of age theory says that the trees could have been created with multiple tree rings already intact, making them appear older than they really are.
2) Trees can grow two tree rings in a year, instead of just one. Making the trees appear older than they really are.

•Response to creationists.
1) If we are using the bible here, we have two different sets of evidence. It says in,
“Gen 1:12** And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.” Based on this, we would assume that the trees were created with rings. However it says in, “Gen 2:5** And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and [there was] not a man to till the ground.” Based on this we would assume that the first trees and plants grew after creation ad would not have extra rings. Contradicting evidence in the bible, however, we can say that even if there were tree rings created into the trees, there wouldn’t be enough to make the tree rings match Ussher’s dates. As even 100 years of original tree rings would not change the dates to match. Read more about the Appearance of age theory below.
2) Trees can also not grow a ring. However trees don’t all add or lose a ring at the same time. By getting many samples and cross checking them, the False rings can be ruled out and a more accurate date can be found. The more an area is researched, the less likely false rings will pose a problem to the date.



•Creosote Bush
-The oldest living bush in the world is the “King Clone” creosote bush in southern California. It is believed to be 11,000 years old. It is possible that they have found a creosote bush that is even older.



•Radiometric Dating.
-Many different types of Radiometric dating has been used that show many things to be older than 6,000 years.

•Creationist Responses to Radiometric dating.
1) The Radiometric dating method is flawed.
2) The Radiometric dating method has been changed by the flood.

•Response to creationists.
1) Each different type of radiometric dating does have its limitations. Many people who use them know this and know when to use them and when not to use them. Many times when creationist groups claim a dating method is “flawed” they have used it wrong. One example is AIG using K/Ar dating to date a new lava flow. K/Ar dating is known to give bad results on new lava flows. This is known and is taken into account when K/Ar is being used to date things. AIG apparently ignored this and then pretended that this proves K/Ar as being a bad dating method. They also tried to use a piece of wood inside a rock to prove the Carbon dating method wrong. Unfortunatly they only gave the reader half the information, and so they came to the wrong conclusion (I made another thread about this if anyone is curious)
2) Unfortunately there is no evidence that this flood happened. I also haven’t got an answer to how a flood can distort different radiometric data by equal amounts, so that they all line up, even though radiometric readings would take different processes to distort them.



•Flood Problems.
-The flood is important to creationism, as it is often used to explain the reason for getting data that doesn’t fit with a 6000 year old earth. However it has many problems of its own, to keep this thread shorter, they can be see here:
Edit: thanks to Troodon for pointing out my link didnt go to where I thought It did. I bet the Flood problems thread got killed during the Data Rapture on CF. I can repost the thread if anyone wants as its another that was long enough for me to want to be able to use a Save feature.




•Lack of flood History.
-Both the Egyptian and Chinese civilizations (among many others) were around in 2349 B.C. Neither of these civilizations recorded a global flood.
-Besides the fact that if the flood happened as it is said, we should see these thriving civilizations just drop out of existence. But on the contrary they moved through the flood date without any change in their civilizations by a catastrophic disaster.



•Old Civilizations.
-Civilizations existed before 4004 B.C. Which should be impossible if its the date of creation.
-Around 1,400 years before the date of creation, around 5400 B.C. Mesopotamia had Irrigation.


•Hyper Evolution.
-Many creationists believe that Noah only took “kinds” of animals onto the ark and that they micro evolved into what we see now. The problem with this is that if there have only been around 4352 years ago, this micro evolution would have to happen at an enormous rate. A type of Hyper evolution that happened in a very short amount of time to all animals. There should be lots of different records and evidence of this hyper micro evolution happening to every animal on the planet at the same time.



•The Appearance of Age Theory.
As was mentioned earlier The Appearance of Age Theory says that the universe was created to appear older than it really is. This cant be proven or disproven, we cant find any evidence to support it or falsify it. It is in the realm of philosophy, not science. It also can be used against christianity as much as it can be used for it. Since after all, the universe could be 5 minutes old, and our memories are faked or the universe could have been created 1 Billion years ago, making both science and the bible wrong. There is no evidence for any of the dates, or the “theory” in general. The bible does say that, “1Cr 14:33** For God is not [the author] of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. “ Since god is the author of creation, according to this he should not have put false data in the earth to create confusion. Some have suggested that this is taking the verse out of context, however, creationists sometimes use it as well, so I am still leaving it in here as some added info.


Other Biblical scholars have come up with other dates for creation and the flood. Some have moved dates to match history a bit more. One example is Joshua's conquest of Canaan, Ussher puts it around 1451 B.C. The Egyptians were at peak power around this time. However, Egypt was weak around 1237 B.C. And some believe that this was more likely the time the Joshua conquered Canaan. However Ussher’s calculations still remain to be some of the more accurate calculations of the dates and information in the bible.

This is just a small list of some of the problems with a 6006 year old earth/universe.

-Ari

 

[JohnR7]

- The bristlecone Pine rings have been dated back around 9,000 years. 3,000 years older than the date of creation.
For more information about the Bristlecone Pine and Tree Ring dating: http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/intro.html

Bristlecone Pine may have 4 or 5 thousand rings, but that is only a indication of the tree going dorment, not of the age of the tree in years. False rings or bands are caused by dry times when there is not enough water available to keep the tree from going dorment.

 

[Arikay]

From what I wrote:
"2) Trees can also not grow a ring. However trees don’t all add or lose a ring at the same time. By getting many samples and cross checking them, the False rings can be ruled out and a more accurate date can be found. The more an area is researched, the less likely false rings will pose a problem to the date."

The Bristlecone Pinetree area has been studied enough that the date is very accurate.

Bristlecone Pine may have 4 or 5 thousand rings, but that is only a indication of the tree going dorment, not of the age of the tree in years. False rings or bands are caused by dry times when there is not enough water available to keep the tree from going dorment.

 

[JohnR7]

The Bristlecone Pinetree area has been studied enough that the date is very accurate.

I really have nothing to defend here. According to the GAP, trees were first created about 10,000 years ago. So the Bristlecone Pinetree would help to establish the GAP to be true.

But I am not convinced that they really are that old. I studied all I could find on the internet on the Bristlecone Pinetrees a while ago. I did not see any indication that they corrected for false rings or bands.

 

[Arikay]

John:
1) The gap theory has many problems that we have shown you, but this thread isnt about it so obviously it would address any of them.

2) King Clone is 11,000 years old, and just recently, a much older bush has been found, but I need to find more info on it and then write it in.

3)Trees date back much later than 10,000 years.

4) As you study and area more, the false rings disapear, you dont really have to correct for them, just collect more data.

I really have nothing to defend here. According to the GAP, trees were first created about 10,000 years ago. So the Bristlecone Pinetree would help to establish the GAP to be true.

But I am not convinced that they really are that old. I studied all I could find on the internet on the Bristlecone Pinetrees a while ago. I did not see any indication that they corrected for false rings or bands.

 

[JohnR7]

2) King Clone is 11,000 years old

The living part of the bush is not actually that old. That is just the way they reproduce themselves. Ivy is a lot like that. The plant just keeps sending out new roots or tubers, as the old ones die off.

Did you ever think that the oldest living trees and bushes are being found in areas that are a desolate wasteland. Pretty much the way the Bible discribes the whole earth at that time.

 

[Arikay]

It doesnt matter, only that the bush is old, and 0thers are older.

The living part of the bush is not actually that old. That is just the way they reproduce themselves. Ivy is a lot like that. The plant just keeps sending out new roots or tubers, as the old ones die off.

Did you ever think that the oldest living trees and bushes are being found in areas that are a desolate wasteland. Pretty much the way the Bible discribes the whole earth at that time.

 

[JohnR7]

It doesnt matter, only that the bush is old, and 0thers are older.

If we accept your evidence as being true, then all that would show is that the "day" in Genesis one are not literal 24 hour days. That they actually represent 1000 years each as Moses & Peter tells us.

2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Psalm 90:4
For a thousand years in Your sight
Are like yesterday when it is past,
And like a watch in the night.

A watch is 3 hours. So a day could also be 8000 years, so the universe could be 64,000 years old, also.

 

[Jet Black]

2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

everything could be six days old too, by this reckoning.

 

[Arikay]

No John, it wouldnt, it would actually falsify the gap theory.
and
Scripture is not evidence.
and
again, this is not about your Gap theory, its about YECs.

 

[JohnR7]

this is not about your Gap theory, its about YECs.

Yeah, there is really nothing left to say if you want to stay on topic. I do not agree with Bishop Usshers theory of the creation days be 24 hours in length.

I just wanted to make my comment about the tree rings and there is really no reason to go any further on that. You believe what you believe and I believe what I beleive and that is fine.

 

[Melange_Thief]

That's odd. He doesn't say this in other threads.

 

[Gracchus]

No John,...this is not about your Gap theory, its about YECs.

But JohnR7 can't stand being ignored.

 

[JohnR7]

But JohnR7 can't stand being ignored.

Actually, I was wondering about that. Why are not more of my posts ignored? Why do so many people respond to them?

 

[worship4ever]

thats like saying that if you count the light and dark areas in deep snow that its going to tell you the age of the snow, it actually indicates hot/cold not summer/winter, that may be a concept applied to the tree ring thing. Personally i dont care how old the earth is, its no surprise their's young and old earh creationist, mostly stemming from the hebrew word YOM in genesis. God still made the earth, either 6000 years or a million, its still a joy to serve. I've heard both sides of the story but i'll do somemore reading on the subject, just for curiousity sake, lol.

 

[worship4ever]

Tree rings:

Several long tree-ring chronologies have been constructed specifically for use in calibrating the radiocarbon time scale. By radiocarbon dating a piece of wood which has been dated by counting the annual growth rings of trees back to when that piece of wood grew, a calibration table can be constructed to convert radiocarbon years to "TRUE" calendar years. Of course, the table, so constructed, will only give the correct calibration if the tree-ring chronology which was used to construct it had placed each ring in the true calendar year in which it grew. A calendar year to us is not a calendar year to a tree. Each year brings different climates, temps, water, all which makes the tree grow faster or slower. A ring may not create in one human calendar year.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

thats like saying that if you count the light and dark areas in deep snow that its going to tell you the age of the snow, it actually indicates hot/cold not summer/winter, that may be a concept applied to the tree ring thing.

There's a lot more to ice core analysis than simply counting light and dark layers. Stuff gets trapped in those layers, like pollen, dust, volcanic ash, etc, that can be dated and cross-referenced with other date measurements.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Tree rings:

<snip>

A ring may not create in one human calendar year.

Again, this is why stuff is cross-referenced. There's more to dendrochronology than simply counting tree rings.

 

[worship4ever]

i agree pete, stuff gets trapped, though accurately telling the date of pollen and dust is a bit difficault. I've read a few things about it, let me find the links.

 

[Arikay]

Exactly what Pete said, its a huge field, and I find it funny when people say 1 sentance and think they have disproven tree rings.

As I mentioned in my long post, the strange thing is that tree rings dont show any sort of global flood event in the last 10,000 years. And thats just tree rings.