The Age of the Earth - alternatives, anyone?

[shernren]

Many people say that with an alternative interpretation of the data, we could have a young earth. Now, I'm not sure how true that is with the other dating methods like dendrochronology and varves, but I have done a little homework on radiodating. So, here's the question:

Do any YECists here have an alternative, scientifically viable combination of natural occurences that would take a rock sample with an isochron date of zero to an isochron date of 3 billion years, given 6000 years (or less) for this to take place?

Note that I specified the initial conditions. To have an isochron which is initially very far from zero would imply a drastic isotopic differentiation in the way minerals uptake elements. However we do not observe this, and this must therefore be outside the scientific scope as an irreproducible observation. (Which is not to say it could not have happened, but that discussion of this would not be scientific discussion as these are conditions which cannot be reproduced.)

 

[Remus]

I'm a bit busy at the moment, but if you give me some time I'll see what I can come up with.

 

[billwald]

1. Our universe doesn't exist. We are inside a big "holodeck."

2. Our universe doesn't exist. We are inside a computer memory.

3. Our universe doesn't exist except in the mind of God.

4. Our universe is mystical/magical like "Amber."

 

[shernren]

No prob. This isn't something to be done lightly.

 

[Dexx]

How about "God created the universe 6000 years ago, but gave it the detailed appearance of being billions of years old"?

 

[shernren]

Umm, have you read up on what an isochron is? Well I did state in my post:

To have an isochron which is initially very far from zero would imply a drastic isotopic differentiation in the way minerals uptake elements. However we do not observe this, and this must therefore be outside the scientific scope as an irreproducible observation.

In other words we're assuming that the clock starts at zero. To assume otherwise is theoretically possible, but does raise important theological concerns that others have addressed well on these forums.

 

[ChristianDude777]

Grace and peace to you,

There are teachings of pre-Adamic races and pre-Gen 1 earth. There are also some scriptures that do seem to support this. I'm not saying I'm convinced yet because it's rather vague scriptural support but it does answer some questions.

The teaching goes something along the lines of the earth existed, not as we know it, in a period between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:3. I was the period that satan fell according to some. It allows for the existance of dinosaurs as well as there being a billion years old earth.

The earth as we have it now was Created 6000 years ago but it's actual substance, according tot his teaching, actually existed longer, just in different form and a different age. The previous earth was destroyed by flood, which is why the Spirit of God hovered over the faceof the "deep."

It all makes sense and, as stated, there are scriptures that lend to the idea. But who can say for certain..?

Tim L.

 

[Remus]

In other words we're assuming that the clock starts at zero. To assume otherwise is theoretically possible, but does raise important theological concerns that others have addressed well on these forums.

I have a small comment on this line of thinking. We are simply talking about the chemical composition of rocks based on when the rocks last formed from a molten state. If the rocks were not formed this way, created out of nothing for example, then these tests are not valid. As you say, it is true that this is not testable, but it is what we YEC's believe happened. You mention theological issue, which I assume you are referring to the “appearance of history” problem. We don’t have the “appearance of history” problem with rocks since we are simply talking about their chemical composition. There is no history, only age. Just like Adam.

Getting back to the direction that you want to go. I’ve got the basic idea of isochron dating. Can you provide me with the test data that you want to work with?

 

[The Lady Kate]

How about "God created the universe 6000 years ago, but gave it the detailed appearance of being billions of years old"?

Possible... but that translates to "God is fooling us."

Not really an option I'd want to consider...

 

[invisible trousers]

The earth as we have it now was Created 6000 years ago but it's actual substance, according tot his teaching, actually existed longer, just in different form and a different age. The previous earth was destroyed by flood, which is why the Spirit of God hovered over the faceof the "deep."

It all makes sense and, as stated, there are scriptures that lend to the idea. But who can say for certain..?

If the earth is indeed 6000 years old, then every single piece of physical evidence should point towards a young earth. But, there isn't a single piece of evidence of it, and creationists have yet to produce a valid alternative other than "no that's not right".

Your interpretation of Genesis makes God a liar who actively deceives His followers by making the story of creation conflict with the physical evidence. God cannot be inconsistent; both the physical and scriptural evidence for creation must match.

 

[notto]

We don’t have the “appearance of history” problem with rocks since we are simply talking about their chemical composition. There is no history, only age. Just like Adam.

Accept that those rocks appear in formations of lava flows and such that certainly make them look like they had a specific history and source. They are on top of other rocks and below others. They certainly show us a history that would need to be constructed specifically to appear that the rocks came to be in a way they did not.

 

[SBG]

If the earth is indeed 6000 years old, then every single piece of physical evidence should point towards a young earth. But, there isn't a single piece of evidence of it, and creationists have yet to produce a valid alternative other than "no that's not right".

Your interpretation of Genesis makes God a liar who actively deceives His followers by making the story of creation conflict with the physical evidence. God cannot be inconsistent; both the physical and scriptural evidence for creation must match.

What if when God comes and He says He did create the world in six days, six thousand years ago? What would you make of this liar claim?

 

[billwald]

If we can't trust God to give us a universe that we can trust within our ability to make observations and measurements then how can we trust God with things we can't observe?

 

[shernren]

Then we'd ask if it's what God said or what you thought He'd said, and then we'd ask you to go discuss this in a more relevant thread. XD no hard feelings.

Well, Remus, how about this one: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#pbiso

I don't have office software in my library computers here so I can't make up an ideal graph. But the magnitude of the problem is that assuming we are starting from a zero isochron, the creationist aging process has to make it age approximately 85 years in an hour, or about 2100 years in a day (24h), assuming a linear rate. This is certainly a laboratory-detectable rate!

Or if you don't have the time you can just say "Goddidit" and decline. It's an honourable thing.

 

[invisible trousers]

What if when God comes and He says He did create the world in six days, six thousand years ago? What would you make of this liar claim?

I don't play what if??? games.

Once again implicitly stating that the literal YEC interpretation of Genesis is the only correct one.

You're still ignoring my points. I guarantee you God would not make physical evidence of creation directly conflict with the story of creation in scripture. If He did, then He would be lying to and deceiving all His followers.

But this is exact result of a YEC reading of Genesis. I told you in a different thread, and I'll tell you in this one: There is no way around it. God cannot be inconsistent. The story of creation in the bible must match the physical evidence of creation. Both come from God; one cannot be false and the other be true.

You can trot out the "but people are interpreting science wrong", which I think you're gonna do. That arguement doesn't mean anything because YEC hasn't proposed a single plausible scientific alternative. YEC hasn't brought any piece of physical evidence to the table which supports their view, but instead has tried to refute the claims of evolution/old earth without any success.

 

[Remus]

Well, Remus, how about this one: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#pbiso

I was hoping for something less umm... TO'ist. Is this all we have to work with?

I don't have office software in my library computers here so I can't make up an ideal graph. But the magnitude of the problem is that assuming we are starting from a zero isochron, the creationist aging process has to make it age approximately 85 years in an hour, or about 2100 years in a day (24h), assuming a linear rate. This is certainly a laboratory-detectable rate!

What if we don't start with "zero isochron". I assume that by "zero isochron", you mean that the line in the graph passes through zero?

Or if you don't have the time you can just say "Goddidit" and decline. It's an honourable thing.

Don't worry. Even though I don't have the time, I'll fit it in somewhere.

 

[shernren]

No I meant that the isochron's initial slope would be zero. In other words the Pb207/Pb204 ratio would initially be constant through all the rocks, showing little / no isotopic discrimination at time of formation. Thanks so much. You do get what I'm asking for right? A set of natural processes which would skew the relevant isotope ratios in the time required.

 

[ChristianDude777]

Your interpretation of Genesis makes God a liar who actively deceives His followers by making the story of creation conflict with the physical evidence. God cannot be inconsistent; both the physical and scriptural evidence for creation must match.

Hi,

It's not about my, or anyone else's, interpretation of the Genesis. It's about what God's Word teaches...

Can you explain to me how I make God a liar..?

If you had read my post, you would have seen where I present an idea of a foundational base for the world that could be billions of years old. The pre-Adamic flood idea, that is supported in various scriptures, supports that.

Can you present the physical evidence you claim..?

Tim L.

 

[The Lady Kate]

What if when God comes and He says He did create the world in six days, six thousand years ago? What would you make of this liar claim?

I would say that whoever is making the claim clearly is not God.

 

[Remus]

No I meant that the isochron's initial slope would be zero. In other words the Pb207/Pb204 ratio would initially be constant through all the rocks, showing little / no isotopic discrimination at time of formation. Thanks so much. You do get what I'm asking for right? A set of natural processes which would skew the relevant isotope ratios in the time required.

Ah, ok. That makes more sense. No luck on different data?