YEC view on carbon dating

[Sojourner<><]

This is a question for YEC'ists out there...
Is there any possible explanation for the results of carbon dating? I don't know enough about it to make an effective argument.

 

[Vance]

Here are a couple of explanations of the dating. It is from someone opposed to evolution, for what that is worth:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2001issue07/index.shtml#dynamics_of_dating

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/carbon14.shtml

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/roger_wiens_radiometric_dating.shtml

 

[shernren]

I find that the sites are excellent laymen's introductions ... of course, they didn't mention isochron dating *goes off and plays his broken record* but what they mentioned is pretty good. But that's an OEC view so, Sojourner, you satisfied?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Here is a site about carbon14 and other dating methods, it is not YEC but it is writen by a scientist that is also a Christian.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

 

[Delta One]

Hi Sojourner<><,

Is there any possible explanation for the results of carbon dating? I don't know enough about it to make an effective argument.

If you are genuinely interested in a Christian creationary view on the carbon dating method, then may I suggest you check out the article What About Carbon Dating? by Answers in Genesis available from: <http://answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp>.

Here they clearly show how the carbon clock works and the factors that affect its 'rate of decay'. They describe how and why carbon dating is only accurate to about the time of the Flood (4,500 years ago). The article also briefly touches on a few other dating techniques including the Potassium/Argon dating method. The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) may also have some useful information about the carbon dating method <http://wwww.icr.org>.

Hi shernren,

I haven't had the time to construct a full answer to your post in another forum where I promised that I would. I've been engaging some sceptics on the GA forum (which was fairly fun).

Bfn,
Delta One.

 

[shernren]

I don't find the Open Forum fun. It hurts. Why should we be bashing each other in public?

Well, for once AiG gets a substantial bit of the article right. Fantastic. Carbon dating only accurate to a few thousand years, only applicable to once living organisms, fluctuates wildly is correct. But the substantial geological evidence isn't based on C-14 dating but on other methods such as Rb-Sr isochrons and U-Pb concordia. Knowing that, AiG has to discredit those as well, and that's where everything goes wrong.

Ramidus selective dating: Interestingly, this one I can't find too much noise about. There was this: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c029.html and an interesting portion was:

[font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif]There is no indication in that report or in the dating article by Wolde Gabriel et al. [14] that the discoverers were able to determine the exact places from which these fossils had eroded. There is the assumption that they eroded in the places where they were found, but there is nothing in the reports to exclude their having been washed in from elsewhere during the heavy seasonal rains. This fact, in itself, would seem to place a degree of contingency on the dating of these fossils.[/font]

In other words, everybody knew beforehand that dating them would be difficult ... not that they got some funny numbers and then said "Okay, these numbers are mad, we've gotta be wrong somewhere." the way AiG implies. Ditto with that skull. Comments anyone? Has anyone seen the actual papers?

John Woodmorappe has produced an incisive critique of these dating methods.13 He exposes hundreds of myths that have grown up around the techniques. He shows that the few ‘good’ dates left after the ‘bad’ dates are filtered out could easily be explained as fortunate coincidences.

The only incisive critiques I'm seeing is against John Woodmorappe:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodmorappe-geochronology.html
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/woodmorappe_bill_of_goods_henke.htm

There are many examples where the dating methods give ‘dates’ that are wrong for rocks of known age. One example is K-Ar ‘dating’ of five historical andesite lava flows from Mount Nguaruhoe in New Zealand. Although one lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975, the ‘dates’ range from less than 0.27 to 3.5 Ma.14

Refuted: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013.html

The isochron technique involves collecting a number of rock samples from different parts of the rock unit being dated. The concentration of a parent radioactive isotope, such as rubidium-87, is graphed against the concentration of a daughter isotope, such as strontium-87, for all the samples. A straight line is drawn through these points, representing the ratio of the parent:daughter, from which a date is calculated. If the line is of good fit and the ‘age’ is acceptable, it is a ‘good’ date. The method involves dividing both the parent and daughter concentrations by the concentration of a similar stable isotope—in this case, strontium-86.

(from footnote) This is just a massive oversimplification. Real facts here! http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html

Geologist Dr Steve Austin sampled basalt from the base of the Grand Canyon strata and from the lava that spilled over the edge of the canyon. By evolutionary reckoning, the latter should be a billion years younger than the basalt from the bottom. Standard laboratories analyzed the isotopes. The rubidium-strontium isochron technique suggested that the recent lava flow was 270 Ma older than the basalts beneath the Grand Canyon—an impossibility.

Firstly, it's not evolutionary reckoning: it's plain common sense. If you see a cookie with milk spilled over it, you'd expect that the cookie was there before the milk. If you see lava spill over the edge of the canyon, the canyon was there before the lava. Duh.

Refuted:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD014_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html

In Australia, some wood found in Tertiary basalt was clearly buried in the lava flow that formed the basalt, as can be seen from the charring. The wood was ‘dated’ by radiocarbon (14C) analysis at about 45,000 years old, but the basalt was ‘dated’ by potassium-argon method at 45 million years old!19

Refuted: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_5.html

Laboratories that measure 14C would like a source of organic material with zero 14C to use as a blank to check that their lab procedures do not add 14C. Coal is an obvious candidate because the youngest coal is supposed to be millions of years old, and most of it is supposed to be tens or hundreds of millions of years old. Such old coal should be devoid of 14C. It isn't. No source of coal has been found that completely lacks 14C.

Refuted: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_6.html

Evidence for a rapid formation of geological strata, as in the biblical flood. Some of the evidence are: lack of erosion between rock layers supposedly separated in age by many millions of years; lack of disturbance of rock strata by biological activity (worms, roots, etc.); lack of soil layers; polystrate fossils (which traverse several rock layers vertically—these could not have stood vertically for eons of time while they slowly got buried); thick layers of ‘rock’ bent without fracturing, indicating that the rock was all soft when bent; and more. For more, see books by geologists Morris26 and Austin.27

Refuted:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD510.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC331.html

Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years—certainly not the 65 Ma since the last dinosaurs lived, according to evolutionists.28

Refuted:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC371.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC371_1.html

The earth’s magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it looks like it is less than 10,000 years old. Rapid reversals during the flood year and fluctuations shortly after would have caused the field energy to drop even faster.29

Refuted: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD701.html

Radioactive decay releases helium into the atmosphere, but not much is escaping. The total amount in the atmosphere is 1/2000th of that expected if the universe is really billions of years old. This helium originally escaped from rocks. This happens quite fast, yet so much helium is still in some rocks that it has not had time to escape—certainly not billions of years.30

Refuted:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE001.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD015.html

A supernova is an explosion of a massive star—the explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. The supernova remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (Stage 3) SNRs, and few moderately old (Stage 1) ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or in its satellite galaxies, the Magellanic Clouds. This is just what we would expect for ‘young’ galaxies that have not existed long enough for wide expansion.31

Refuted: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE401.html

The moon is slowly receding from the earth at about 4 centimeters (1.5 inches) per year, and this rate would have been greater in the past. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance from the earth. This gives a maximum age of the moon, not the actual age. This is far too young for evolutionists who claim the moon is 4.6 billion years old. It is also much younger than the radiometric ‘dates’ assigned to moon rocks.32

Refuted: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE110.html

Salt is entering the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the sea could not be more than 62 Ma years old—far younger than the billions of years believed by the evolutionists. Again, this indicates a maximum age, not the actual age.

Refuted:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD221.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD221_1.html

The isochron dating technique was thought to be infallible because it supposedly covered the assumptions about starting conditions and closed systems.

Geologist Dr Andrew Snelling worked on dating the Koongarra uranium deposits in the Northern Territory of Australia, primarily using the uranium-thorium-lead (U-Th-Pb) method. He found that even highly weathered soil samples from the area, which are definitely not closed systems, gave apparently valid ‘isochron’ lines with ‘ages’ of up to 1,445 Ma.

Refuted:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD001.html
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/snelling_doublethink_henke.htm

Clearly, there are factors other than age responsible for the straight lines obtained from graphing isotope ratios. Again, the only way to know if an isochron is ‘good’ is by comparing the result with what is already believed.

Refuted: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD014.html

Another currently popular dating method is the uranium-lead concordia technique. This effectively combines the two uranium-lead decay series into one diagram. Results that lie on the concordia curve have the same age according to the two lead series and are called ‘concordant.’ However, the results from zircons (a type of gemstone), for example, generally lie off the concordia curve—they are discordant. Numerous models, or stories, have been developed to explain such data.

Uhhuh. Explain this? http://www.geo.wvu.edu/~jtoro/Research/shrimp/shrimp.htm ... Science is all about developing models to explain data. If AiG doesn't want to do this they should stop calling what they do "science".

As long ago as 1966, Nobel Prize nominee Melvin Cook, professor of metallurgy at the University of Utah, pointed out evidence that lead isotope ratios, for example, may involve alteration by important factors other than radioactive decay.39
- snip -
When the isotope concentrations are adjusted for such conversions, the ages calculated are reduced from some 600 Ma to recent. Other ore bodies seemed to show similar evidence. Cook recognized that the current understanding of nuclear physics did not seem to allow for such a conversion under normal conditions, but he presents evidence that such did happen, and even suggests how it could happen.

Refuted: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD016.html

Decaying radioactive particles in solid rock cause spherical zones of damage to the surrounding crystal structure. A speck of radioactive element such as Uranium-238, for example, will leave a sphere of discoloration of characteristically different radius for each element it produces in its decay chain to lead-206.41 Viewed in cross-section with a microscope, these spheres appear as rings called radiohalos. Dr Gentry has researched radiohalos for many years, and published his results in leading scientific journals.42

Refuted:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF201.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/violences.html

And just to be sure of not violating copyright, all quotes taken from http://answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp ...

 

[Sojourner<><]

I find that the sites are excellent laymen's introductions ... of course, they didn't mention isochron dating *goes off and plays his broken record* but what they mentioned is pretty good. But that's an OEC view so, Sojourner, you satisfied?

Not quite.

Personally I find it hard to accept the old ages suggested by radiometric methods since there doesn't seem to be a concrete way to test the results. Perhaps we could test the age up to a few thousand years with some accuracy but when assumptions are made concerning vast amounts of time from the results of these tests, I'd have to recognize it for what it is: an assumption.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Not quite.

Personally I find it hard to accept the old ages suggested by radiometric methods since there doesn't seem to be a concrete way to test the results. Perhaps we could test the age up to a few thousand years with some accuracy but when assumptions are made concerning vast amounts of time from the results of these tests, I'd have to recognize it for what it is: an assumption.

Now, I'm no scientist but how can we be sure that a substance's half-life always remains constant? Is it possible that the half-life could increase over time to yield a result of millions or billions of years if it were assumed to be a constant value when it was really not?

look at some of the science.
see how C-14 is corrected by tree ring data
this is a rebuttal of hovind's arguments:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea2.html#proof27
see 14.1.14 at: http://www.onafarawayday.com/Radiogenic/Ch14/Ch14-1.htm

so you're back to 10K with tree rings.

then look at ice cores:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html

then you have G.Morton's favorite varves:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/age.htm


what determines radioactive decay rates?
if they vary, what does that mean?
study up on the weak nuclear force and try to imagine what has to give if you alter these forces.


btw

I'd have to recognize it for what it is: an assumption.

the age of the earth is a CONCLUSION not an assumption.
certainly the rate of decay being a constant appears to be an assumption but it is much more than an unsupported assumption which is what you are trying to say. it is very well supported.

you might want to look up:
assumptions
axioms
conclusions
shaping principles
for instance, in a philosophy of science book to see the differences.

 

[Sojourner<><]

the age of the earth is a CONCLUSION not an assumption.
certainly the rate of decay being a constant appears to be an assumption but it is much more than an unsupported assumption which is what you are trying to say. it is very well supported.

Thank you sir for that well pointed correction.

However, Old Earth theory is exactly that... a theory. Let me remind you that it is not proven.

For your convenience, I've provided the definition of the word theory.

2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject ****eory of equations>

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Thank you sir for that well pointed correction.

However, Old Earth theory is exactly that... a theory. Let me remind you that it is not proven.

For your convenience, I've provided the definition of the word theory.

the philosophy of science supplies a more precise meaning for the word theory then the one you quote. which is the common everyday meaning. note the use of the word conjecture in your definition, like the word-theory, conjecture has a specific scientific meaning.

if we are discussing science you need to use the specific scientific meaning for theory.

http://www.explore-dictionary.com/science/T/Theory.html

additional.
proof and to prove has a very specific scientific meaning which is NOT common sense or normal conversational meaning, it also differs greatly from the mathematical definition of proof.
which leads to the quip here that proof describes math and alcohol not biology.

 

[Sojourner<><]

the philosophy of science supplies a more precise meaning for the word theory then the one you quote. which is the common everyday meaning. note the use of the word conjecture in your definition, like the word-theory, conjecture has a specific scientific meaning.

if we are discussing science you need to use the specific scientific meaning for theory.

http://www.explore-dictionary.com/science/T/Theory.html

additional.
proof and to prove has a very specific scientific meaning which is NOT common sense or normal conversational meaning, it also differs greatly from the mathematical definition of proof.
which leads to the quip here that proof describes math and alcohol not biology.

It's not very difficult to understand what the word "theory" means.

And it doesn't take a genius to figure out that nobody on this earth was actually on this earth when it was created. Because of this, the radiometric dating results of millions or billions of years cannot be proven, although educated guesses can be formulated. I understand that the math involved makes the result look like the Earth is really old, but we can't know that for sure. So, personally, I'd rather stick to the eye witness account, which is what you would need to prove all of this conjecture in the first place.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

It's not very difficult to understand what the word "theory" means.

And it doesn't take a genius to figure out that nobody on this earth was actually on this earth when it was created. Because of this, the radiometric dating results of millions or billions of years cannot be proven, although educated guesses can be formulated. I understand that the math involved makes the result look like the Earth is really old, but we can't know that for sure. So, personally, I'd rather stick to the eye witness account, which is what you would need to prove all of this conjecture in the first place.

This is the 'you were not there, but God was' argument.
it has several interesting angles. The first is how it is related to one of the common topics here, the idea that only an eyewitness, police report, newspaperman's account, ie historical, literal, factual etc. is a valid way to transmit information. This is Vance's specific interest, it ought to be anyone's who is genuinely interested in hermeneutics. There are lots of threads here with this as their focus. Sufficient to say that genre analysis shows that different passages have as their focus and their purpose things very different from our modern 21st C notions of history, science, facts etc. Gen 1 is best described as does M.Kline as a poetical prelude to the treaty of the Great King.

the second interesting item about the 'you weren't there but God was' argument is that it depreciates the book of nature as a revelation of how God did create and how He does operate in the physical universe. Not only does it presume that God is intending to give up historical and scientific accuracy in Gen1 but it assumes that the universe is lying, is deceiptive, is a trickster. This too is a common theme here, the proper reading of the book of nature ought to be in conformance with a proper reading of the book of Words.

there is a third interesting idea embedded in your 'you weren't there but God was' and that is the implicit 'i am on God's side and you are not' perspective. Essentially you are saying that your interpretation of Gen1 is God's and everyone who differs with you, differs not with you but with God. Mildly arrogant, but surprising for anyone aware of the divisive nature of much of modern theology. Put 3 Bible scholars together and you get 5 interpretations of any particular verse. This is the problem of denominationalism, and is a significant problem, with i believe no real answer except a humility.

'1/3 of everything i say is wrong, the problem is i don't know which 1/3'

......

 

[Sojourner<><]

This is the 'you were not there, but God was' argument.
it has several interesting angles. The first is how it is related to one of the common topics here, the idea that only an eyewitness, police report, newspaperman's account, ie historical, literal, factual etc. is a valid way to transmit information. This is Vance's specific interest, it ought to be anyone's who is genuinely interested in hermeneutics. There are lots of threads here with this as their focus. Sufficient to say that genre analysis shows that different passages have as their focus and their purpose things very different from our modern 21st C notions of history, science, facts etc. Gen 1 is best described as does M.Kline as a poetical prelude to the treaty of the Great King.

the second interesting item about the 'you weren't there but God was' argument is that it depreciates the book of nature as a revelation of how God did create and how He does operate in the physical universe. Not only does it presume that God is intending to give up historical and scientific accuracy in Gen1 but it assumes that the universe is lying, is deceiptive, is a trickster. This too is a common theme here, the proper reading of the book of nature ought to be in conformance with a proper reading of the book of Words.

there is a third interesting idea embedded in your 'you weren't there but God was' and that is the implicit 'i am on God's side and you are not' perspective. Essentially you are saying that your interpretation of Gen1 is God's and everyone who differs with you, differs not with you but with God. Mildly arrogant, but surprising for anyone aware of the divisive nature of much of modern theology. Put 3 Bible scholars together and you get 5 interpretations of any particular verse. This is the problem of denominationalism, and is a significant problem, with i believe no real answer except a humility.

'1/3 of everything i say is wrong, the problem is i don't know which 1/3'

......

If I am incorrect could you please point me to where it says in the Bible that the Earth, in its formed state, has existed for billions of years?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

If I am incorrect could you please point me to where it says in the Bible that the Earth, in its formed state, has existed for billions of years?

i will be glad to if you can show me where the Scriptures:

it tells me why the sky is blue without reference to Rayleigh and Mie Scattering.
whether DNA is a left or right handed twist, why amino acids are all L and sugars all D.
if virtual particles are real or really just virtual. and does it mean time can go backwards.
why the American Civil War occurred.
if my wife will be home on time tonight.

all things i'd like to know today as well.

....

ps.
the answer is that the Scriptures don't answer all the questions we have inside of us, despite the need for those answers or the intensity with which we ask.

to answer your question:
The Scriptures are written from a human perspective and assume a timeline roughly equivalent to written history. And this perspective is sufficient to transmit to us all the principles God has in Scriptures for both us and all the ages to come, no matter how sophisticate our science becomes. That is Moses understood the creation of the world to be several dozens of generations removed from his time. This is an accommodation to our fraility (to quote Calvin) and is not an authoritative teaching that the universe is 6K or so years old. It is the historical timeline that is being used to write the history of the Jews, which we know as the OT. It is the packaging of the themes of Scripture (to quote H.Van Till) not the message itself. just like we don't use 1Kings 7:23 to set the value of pi in a math class. it is the usage of human wisdom at that time to communicate God's wisdom in human words without making the human wisdom prescriptive or normative for all Christians for all time.

 

[Sojourner<><]

to answer your question:
The Scriptures are written from a human perspective and assume a timeline roughly equivalent to written history. And this perspective is sufficient to transmit to us all the principles God has in Scriptures for both us and all the ages to come, no matter how sophisticate our science becomes. That is Moses understood the creation of the world to be several dozens of generations removed from his time. This is an accommodation to our fraility (to quote Calvin) and is not an authoritative teaching that the universe is 6K or so years old. It is the historical timeline that is being used to write the history of the Jews, which we know as the OT.

I'm not familiar with this quote, but in this case I would have to say the Apostle Paul trumps Calvin.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

It is the packaging of the themes of Scripture (to quote H.Van Till) not the message itself. just like we don't use 1Kings 7:23 to set the value of pi in a math class. it is the usage of human wisdom at that time to communicate God's wisdom in human words without making the human wisdom prescriptive or normative for all Christians for all time.

The fact is that Genesis does not support Old Age theory. But that doesn't even matter here since your argument seems to be trying to suggest that Genesis has no real actual authority as an account of our creation.

If the Genesis account isn't how it happened, what then is real? Evolution? Who's understanding are you leaning on here? God's and his prophets? It doesn't sound like it.

I'm not against intellectualism, but where intellectualism begins to interfere with faith I have to say faith is the better road to take. Sure it's mind boggling but after all it's just another test of faith.

 

[Vance]

Sojourner, you are making the mistake of thinking that an account that is not strict literal history is not "real". Do you not think that God can tell us everything important about His creative process using figurative language, including poetry, symbolism and typology? It is still telling a true story about true events in Creation, but it is simply NOT an attempt to tell us the HOW and WHEN, but instead is telling us all about the WHO and WHY.

You are starting with the presumption that Genesis actually says God created in six 24 hour periods, and then concluding that anyone who thinks that did not happen is not believing the Bible is true, or not accepting what the Bible is telling them.

We TE's believe what the Bible says is completely true, we just don't think it says what you think it says.

 

[Vance]

Here is a good link for you:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/6-02Watts.html#Making Sense of Genesis 1

 

[Delta One]

Hi shernren,

If you bring up logical arguments then you shouldn't get to badly 'hurt'. So we just 'bash' each other here? I really enjoy GA because I like giving answers to people in a manner such that most find easy to understand. I mean, you guys are already saved, there are fellow humans out there that are on a one-way trip to hell and I will try and do what I can to convince them or at least give the Holy Spirit something to work with in convicting them and bringing them to Christ.



It’s already past midnight, but I just wanted to say that the OP only asked for sources, not for people to debate them. I'll just deal with one website you listed now and maybe the others later on when I have time.



Firstly, it's not evolutionary reckoning: it's plain common sense. If you see a cookie with milk spilled over it, you'd expect that the cookie was there before the milk. If you see lava spill over the edge of the canyon, the canyon was there before the lava. Duh.



And that last part was absolutely necessary? Kind of goes under the name 'bashing' doesn't it? That's what common sense leads us to believe. But the radiometric dating methods say other wise. They would have us believe, if we took them seriously, that the Canyon formed 'up-side-down' as it were. I've just briefly looked over the first 'refuted' link on the last point <http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD014_1.html> and I would like to make a few comments about it.



The article says the following:



Austin's selection of samples violated this assumption. His five samples came from four different lava flows plus one phenocryst (which likely solidified in the magma chamber before the flow).



Where is the reference to substantiate this claim?



Further more, Dr Austin never said or implied that the method itself was invalid, which is what the Talk Origins article clearly said in the first point of their response. No, the ICR paper said: The observation that obviously recent lava flows from the north rim of Grand Canyon give ages even older than the deeply buried lava flows, challenges the basic assumptions upon which the isochron dating method is based. Talk Origins has a history of distorting the facts (e.g. 3rd stage SNRs) and they are readily doing the same here now by shoving words in ICR's article <http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-224.htm> that were just simply not written.



The Talk Origins article also didn't try and tackle or explain why Dr Austin's points seemed to describe a line when plotted, which means that the date should be reliable and hence, Dr Austin picked good samples, again contrary to what Talk Origins claims...



The ICR article says the following:



Figures 2 and 3 show isotope ratios of rubidium and strontium in the two basaltic lava flow units of Grand Canyon. Figure 2 shows the isotope ratios of six rock samples from the Cardenas Basalt. These analyses were determined by E. H. McKee and D. C. Noble, two geologists working with support from the U.S. Geological Survey, National Science Foundation, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The fact that the data seem to describe a line on the plot of 87Sr/86Sr versus 87Rb/86Sr, is thought to testify to the validity of the method and the suitability of the specimens, and thus the basalt was given an "age" interpretation by the two geologists. They reasoned that the Cardenas Basalt issued from a volcano or volcanoes which originally had lavas with a common ratio of strontium isotopes.



Here we read that the lavas were thought to have a common ratio of strontium isotopes (the only way that it could happen is if they were ‘cogenetic’), but what does Talk Origin say? They say and I quote:



One of the requirements for isochron dating is that the samples be cogenetic, that is, that they come from materials that were isotopically homogeneous (with respect to each other) when they formed. Austin's selection of samples violated this assumption. His five samples came from four different lava flows plus one phenocryst (which likely solidified in the magma chamber before the flow). Thus, Austin's conclusion, not the isochron method, is invalid.



But that’s not what Dr Austin and his team reported, they reasoned that the Cardenas Basalt issued from a volcano or volcanoes that originally had lavas with a common ratio of strontium isotopes (because of the line gained after plotting). Talk Origins, however, accuses Dr Austin of not getting samples that were ‘cogenetic’ – if they weren’t, then the lavas would not have had a common ratio of strontium isotopes and we would not expect to see a line on the plot of 87Sr/86SR versus 87RB/86SR to describe a common ratio of strontium isotopes!



If I got lines similar to what Dr Austin (as shown in the diagrams on the ICR article) got in my physics practicals I’d be laughing! My practicals always result in at least two points being so far off that not even the line of best fit goes through the points with error bars!


Also, the other members of the team and the various scientific organisations would have surely known where Dr Austin got the rocks from and how he did it. If he purposefully did something wrong, then that would be the end of his professional scientific career...

Although I’m not knowledgeable about such areas, Talk Origins has clearly misrepresented Dr Austin and his method and as such, it is easy to point it out when they do. They sound convincing at first, but when you do some research and look into the topic further, you see that they are just blowing smoke. Talk Origins is well renowned for distorting the facts and lying, it is no surprise to me that they do the same thing here in this article. Many have fallen into the trap of believing their lies, I pray that the Spirit of Truth reveals that to them. Similarly, I believe that the other links have the similar flaw of misrepresentation and concealment of the facts; time however restrains me from checking it out.


I hope now you just see a little bit of why I am wary about using sources from Talk Origin and why I don't think that they are a very good 'authority' to fall back on.

 

[shernren]

Hi shernren,

If you bring up logical arguments then you shouldn't get to badly 'hurt'. So we just 'bash' each other here? I really enjoy GA because I like giving answers to people in a manner such that most find easy to understand. I mean, you guys are already saved, there are fellow humans out there that are on a one-way trip to hell and I will try and do what I can to convince them or at least give the Holy Spirit something to work with in convicting them and bringing them to Christ.

No, I'm not hurt by being wrong. I'm hurt in being right because that means I have proved my brothers wrong in some way. It's bad enough to do it here, but far worse to do it in front of unbelievers. That's why I'm leaving the job of refuting YECs in the Open thread to others.

Firstly, it's not evolutionary reckoning: it's plain common sense. If you see a cookie with milk spilled over it, you'd expect that the cookie was there before the milk. If you see lava spill over the edge of the canyon, the canyon was there before the lava. Duh.

Yes, I was being a little too sharp here. Sorry.

[/font]

Austin's selection of samples violated this assumption. His five samples came from four different lava flows plus one phenocryst (which likely solidified in the magma chamber before the flow).

Where is the reference to substantiate this claim?

Right here:

[/color]Austin, Steven A., ed., 1994. Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe. Plus Communications, ISBN 0-932766-33-1.

I don't have the book, but it seems he did specifically mention it there. Can anyone who has the book check?

Further more, Dr Austin never said or implied that the method itself was invalid, which is what the Talk Origins article clearly said in the first point of their response. No, the ICR paper said: The observation that obviously recent lava flows from the north rim of Grand Canyon give ages even older than the deeply buried lava flows, challenges the basic assumptions upon which the isochron dating method is based. Talk Origins has a history of distorting the facts (e.g. 3rd stage SNRs) and they are readily doing the same here now by shoving words in ICR's article <http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-224.htm> that were just simply not written.

Never said, perhaps. Never implied, I would strongly disagree.

Do radioactive isotope dating methods provide convincing evidence for billion-year-old rocks? (paragraph 2)

The observation that obviously recent lava flows from the north rim of Grand Canyon give ages even older than the deeply buried lava flows, challenges the basic assumptions upon which the isochron dating method is based. (2nd last paragraph)

ICR wasn't pulling any punches. If they meant to say just that the basic assumptions were tested, they were right. The top basaltic flows come from the mixing of two separate flows, which means that the basic assumptions were violated for Grand Canyon lavas. In other words, isochron datings of Grand Canyon lavas are suspect.

Does that say anything about isochron dating elsewhere in the world? No, unless you're a zealous creationist. It just means, to a geologist, that you have to be careful with your samples. I refuse to comment on ICR's motivations in questioning isochron datings for Grand Canyon lavas knowing full well that just because the basic assumptions are violated for Grand Canyon lavas doesn't mean they are violated anywhere else in the world.

BTW, what's your source on the 3rd-stage SNRs?

The Talk Origins article also didn't try and tackle or explain why Dr Austin's points seemed to describe a line when plotted, which means that the date should be reliable and hence, Dr Austin picked good samples, again contrary to what Talk Origins claims...

Discussed here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html#mixing

The ICR article says the following:

Figures 2 and 3 show isotope ratios of rubidium and strontium in the two basaltic lava flow units of Grand Canyon. Figure 2 shows the isotope ratios of six rock samples from the Cardenas Basalt. These analyses were determined by E. H. McKee and D. C. Noble, two geologists working with support from the U.S. Geological Survey, National Science Foundation, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The fact that the data seem to describe a line on the plot of 87Sr/86Sr versus 87Rb/86Sr, is thought to testify to the validity of the method and the suitability of the specimens, and thus the basalt was given an "age" interpretation by the two geologists. They reasoned that the Cardenas Basalt issued from a volcano or volcanoes which originally had lavas with a common ratio of strontium isotopes.

Look carefully: The two geologists are talking about the Cardenas basalts, not the basaltic lava flows.

Here we read that the lavas were thought to have a common ratio of strontium isotopes (the only way that it could happen is if they were ‘cogenetic’), but what does Talk Origin say? They say and I quote:

One of the requirements for isochron dating is that the samples be cogenetic, that is, that they come from materials that were isotopically homogeneous (with respect to each other) when they formed. Austin's selection of samples violated this assumption. His five samples came from four different lava flows plus one phenocryst (which likely solidified in the magma chamber before the flow). Thus, Austin's conclusion, not the isochron method, is invalid.

But that’s not what Dr Austin and his team reported, they reasoned that the Cardenas Basalt issued from a volcano or volcanoes that originally had lavas with a common ratio of strontium isotopes (because of the line gained after plotting). Talk Origins, however, accuses Dr Austin of not getting samples that were ‘cogenetic’ – if they weren’t, then the lavas would not have had a common ratio of strontium isotopes and we would not expect to see a line on the plot of 87Sr/86SR versus 87RB/86SR to describe a common ratio of strontium isotopes!

*blink blink*

Dr. Austin reasoned that the Cardenas Basalts were cogenetic. TalkOrigins agrees that the Cardenas Basalts were cogenetic. Dr. Austin went on to date the lava flows, not the Cardenas Basalts. TalkOrigins points out that the lava flows are probably not cogenetic!

If I got lines similar to what Dr Austin (as shown in the diagrams on the ICR article) got in my physics practicals I’d be laughing! My practicals always result in at least two points being so far off that not even the line of best fit goes through the points with error bars!

Also, the other members of the team and the various scientific organisations would have surely known where Dr Austin got the rocks from and how he did it. If he purposefully did something wrong, then that would be the end of his professional scientific career...

Firstly, was this published in a not-so-creationist journal, and what was the reaction? For all you know, his career might actually be over - would you expect ICR to tell you? I can't actually find a proper bio of Dr. Steven A. Austin outside AiG, ICR and ChristianAnswers ...

Also, Dr. Austin theoretically did nothing wrong. Basically the conclusion of the article is that if you date questionable samples, you get questionable dates. This, all the geologists in the world would agree with. The problem is that this will often be misrepresented to the public as "all radiodates are questionable dates" and "you'd never know if a sample is a questionable sample unless its date is a questionable date". I refuse to comment on ICR's possible motivations for publishing such an easily-misrepresented article.

Although I’m not knowledgeable about such areas, Talk Origins has clearly misrepresented Dr Austin and his method and as such, it is easy to point it out when they do. They sound convincing at first, but when you do some research and look into the topic further, you see that they are just blowing smoke. Talk Origins is well renowned for distorting the facts and lying, it is no surprise to me that they do the same thing here in this article. Many have fallen into the trap of believing their lies, I pray that the Spirit of Truth reveals that to them. Similarly, I believe that the other links have the similar flaw of misrepresentation and concealment of the facts; time however restrains me from checking it out.

But, I find that it is the YECs who are misrepresenting his research! For example: http://www.creationmoments.com/radio/transcript.asp?track_id=890

There are many examples of how those who believe in evolutionary long ages exaggerate the abilities of their dating methods. Scientists at the Institute for Creation Research recently published another example of how evolutionary dating methods give wildly exaggerated ages. (goes on to briefly describe Canyon Lava dating)

Oh, of course. Evolutionary dating methods give wildly exaggerated ages when they are used improperly. Do I see that clarified? No. Firstly, they aren't "evolutionary" methods per se. Secondly, they give dull-ly un-exaggerated dates most of the time.

This is still more scientific evidence that those huge evolutionary ages are not well supported by science. There are no good scientific challenges to the truth of the Bible.

There are no good scientific challenges to the truth of the Bible, but there are very good scientific challenges to a certain interpretation of the Bible! Visit www.talkorigins.org.

I hope now you just see a little bit of why I am wary about using sources from Talk Origin and why I don't think that they are a very good 'authority' to fall back on.

And I hope now you just see a little bit of why I am wary about using sources from ICR and AiG.

 

[shernren]

Back to your OP:

This is a question for YEC'ists out there...
Is there any possible explanation for the results of carbon dating? I don't know enough about it to make an effective argument.

Firstly, if you wanted only YECs to answer you should have posted in the YECs forum. That way you wouldn't have to deal with us infidels attacking your faith.

The thing is, if you don't know about it, you're perfectly free to say:

I don't understand how young rocks can give old ages, and I have no idea how science can be so gosh darned wrong. But I believe so because of the Bible.

We'd be fine with that. But don't expect to find much scientific proof for your position. If your position really is based on faith per se, then you should feel comfortable just putting in earplugs and ignoring a word of what any scientist says.

But don't expect to be able to give a good answer to how Christianity can be relevant in today's world of science and technology ...