Why I'm not a young earth creationist...

[Taisho]

Nowhere does the Bible say that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. It's an assumption based on adding up the genealogies of the Bible, while assuming that the earth began with the creation of Adam and that there are no gaps in the genealogies.

Whereas Romans 5 says that death entered the world through Adam, this refers to human death, not animal death. If it were proven that the Bible requires belief in young earth creationism, I'd seriously consider it, but not without some difficulties.

If the earth is less than 10,000 years old, is there any evidence that humans and dinosaurs co-existed? The fossil record seems to contradict that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time.

If the earth is less than 10,000 years old, how do you explain fossil fuels? Are there any petroleum geologists who are also young earth creationists?

How do you explain distant starlight? Not only that, how do you explain the remnants of supernovae? If the earth is less than 10,000 years old, wouldn't that mean the skies contain evidence of supernovae that never happened? How would that square with Psalm 19:1?

Even Answers in Genesis seems to admit that there are supernovae from before 10,000 years ago:



I am not a young earth creationist because these and other concerns have not been resolved, at least not to my satisfaction. Are there any young earth creationists who are able to resolve these concerns?

How can the earth be young when, according to Genesis, the earth was made around the same time as the Heavens - before the god of Genesis designated TIME (sunset-sunset)?

 

[Hans Blaster]

LOL - and what game is that? [edit: material removed]

So.... don't get mad at me.

The game where you repeatedly make me chuckle at your rank incompetence at comprehending the things you think make your point.

 

[VirOptimus]

"Because the K/Ar dating technique relies on the determining the absolute abundances of both 40Ar and potassium, there is not a reliable way to determine if the assumptions are valid. Argon loss and excess argon are two common problems that may cause erroneous ages to be determined."

I see, now read all of the article and try to understand the quoted portion.

 

[Hans Blaster]

How do you "observe" something that allegedly happened billions of years ago?

Telescopes.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Ya'all can't read headings huh? Right there smack dab in the middle of the article!

Problems and Limitations of the K/Ar dating technique
Because the K/Ar dating technique relies on the determining the absolute abundances of both 40Ar and potassium, there is not a reliable way to determine if the assumptions are valid. Argon loss and excess argon are two common problems that may cause erroneous ages to be determined. Argon loss occurs when radiogenic 40Ar (40Ar*) produced within a rock/mineral escapes sometime after its formation. Alteration and high temperature can damage a rock/mineral lattice sufficiently to allow 40Ar* to be released. This can cause the calculated K/Ar age to be younger than the "true" age of the dated material. Conversely, excess argon (40ArE) can cause the calculated K/Ar age to be older than the "true" age of the dated material. Excess argon is simply 40Ar that is attributed to radiogenic 40Ar and/or atmospheric 40Ar. Excess argon may be derived from the mantle, as bubbles trapped in a melt, in the case of a magma. Or it could be a xenocryst/xenolith trapped in a magma/lava during emplacement.

 

[VirOptimus]

Ya'all can't read headings huh? Right there smack dab in the middle of the article!

Problems and Limitations of the K/Ar dating technique
Because the K/Ar dating technique relies on the determining the absolute abundances of both 40Ar and potassium, there is not a reliable way to determine if the assumptions are valid. Argon loss and excess argon are two common problems that may cause erroneous ages to be determined. Argon loss occurs when radiogenic 40Ar (40Ar*) produced within a rock/mineral escapes sometime after its formation. Alteration and high temperature can damage a rock/mineral lattice sufficiently to allow 40Ar* to be released. This can cause the calculated K/Ar age to be younger than the "true" age of the dated material. Conversely, excess argon (40ArE) can cause the calculated K/Ar age to be older than the "true" age of the dated material. Excess argon is simply 40Ar that is attributed to radiogenic 40Ar and/or atmospheric 40Ar. Excess argon may be derived from the mantle, as bubbles trapped in a melt, in the case of a magma. Or it could be a xenocryst/xenolith trapped in a magma/lava during emplacement.

Yes, the article tells us about the limitations (and pitfalls) of the method.

So what?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ya'all can't read headings huh? Right there smack dab in the middle of the article!

Problems and Limitations of the K/Ar dating technique
Because the K/Ar dating technique relies on the determining the absolute abundances of both 40Ar and potassium, there is not a reliable way to determine if the assumptions are valid. Argon loss and excess argon are two common problems that may cause erroneous ages to be determined. Argon loss occurs when radiogenic 40Ar (40Ar*) produced within a rock/mineral escapes sometime after its formation. Alteration and high temperature can damage a rock/mineral lattice sufficiently to allow 40Ar* to be released. This can cause the calculated K/Ar age to be younger than the "true" age of the dated material. Conversely, excess argon (40ArE) can cause the calculated K/Ar age to be older than the "true" age of the dated material. Excess argon is simply 40Ar that is attributed to radiogenic 40Ar and/or atmospheric 40Ar. Excess argon may be derived from the mantle, as bubbles trapped in a melt, in the case of a magma. Or it could be a xenocryst/xenolith trapped in a magma/lava during emplacement.

I already noted that:

What I see in that article is people who understand the limitations of the method they are using.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Telescopes.

Again, telescopes are an instrument of observation. They don't measure the age of anything. The person looking though it is making an assumption.

An assumption based on what? (Based on a world view.)

PS - there are "young" earth astronomers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I owe you an apology for what; smiley faces?

You abuse the funny rating. And you were the one being foolish. That is against the rules of the forum.

 

[VirOptimus]

-snip-

PS - there are "young" earth astronomers.

Not really no.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, telescopes are an instrument of observation. They don't measure the age of anything. The person looking though it is making an assumption.

An assumption based on what? (Based on a world view.)

PS - there are "young" earth astronomers.

You really need to learn what an assumption is.

 

[The Righterzpen]

I already noted that:

LOL - but you refuse to acknowledge those stated limitations!

"... hold the truth in unrighteousness..." What can I say!

 

[Hans Blaster]

Again, telescopes are an instrument of observation. They don't measure the age of anything. The person looking though it is making an assumption.

An assumption based on what? (Based on a world view.)

Do you reject the speed of light too?

 

[VirOptimus]

LOL - but you refuse to acknowledge those stated limitations!

-snip-

He has? When? Quotes please.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Not really no.

So prove to me all astronomers follow the "old earth" time model.

Like I told someone else; two people can play this game.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yet if the half life of carbon 14 dating isn't consistent; why would anyone assume electron capture would be consistent too? Especially considering it wasn't in a lab test. Shouldn't science be duplicatable?

https://www.nrel.colostate.edu/asse...l-lab/docs/NREL_Paul_Campbell_ss_1967_Aug.pdf

Fossil Fuels May Bring Major Changes to Carbon Dating



LOL the dates wouldn't be reliable if the testing method is proved not to be.

Links to articles that you do not understand does not help you.

 

[VirOptimus]

So prove to me all astronomers follow the "old earth" time model.

Like I told someone else; two people can play this game.

Every astronomer has to acknowledge physical reality, and reality tells us the universe is old.

 

[Hans Blaster]

LOL - but you refuse to acknowledge those stated limitations!

I'm not an expert on radioactive dating. I also never said there weren't limitations. [Actually, I just quoted my explicit acknowledgement of them back to you, again.]

I don't feel I can adequately digest and explain them to someone who clearly has much more severe problems in scientific understanding than not being an expert on gasses trapped in minerals, etc.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Do you reject the speed of light too?

I know what they say the speed of light is. Do we know that has remained consistent through time? Do we know that the things they observe are really as far away as they think they are? Again, those are just guesses too.

There is no absolute science to dating the age of the cosmos; or how big the cosmos is. Or whether or not it's remained consistent. They say the cosmos is expanding. And the "bigger" it gets the "faster" it "expands". Entropy - things go from a state of order to a state of chaos.

Wasn't it Hubble who came up with the expanding universe theory?

 

[Hans Blaster]

"... hold the truth in unrighteousness..." What can I say!

Not this garbage again.