Young Earth Hypothesis

[RickG]

You [Doveman] keep citing "dinosaurc14ages.com" as if it were a physics journal or somesuch when it's clearly a Creationist hack website.

How about linking to actual papers rather than Creationist hack websites before lecturing others, o.k.?

Thanks for bringing that up. I just went to that site and browsed the information. It looks like cherry picked information from the paper Doveman linked and possibly the other two papers I sourced as well.

Once again, I will point out the facts.

• The information discussed is specific to a particular type of decay mechanism unique to cosmogenic radionuclides.
• The observed variance in those nuclides were oscillations, not a change in decay rates.
• None of those radionuclides are used in radiometric dating.
• In the original published paper, all of the radionuclides observed showed oscillations of less than 1%. Even if those radionuclides were used in radiometric dating it would make no difference at all.

 

[RickG]

I believe in the young Earth and Universe hypothesis.

Okay. May I ask the source of your information that brings you to that conclusion?

Although age indicators are called “clocks” they aren’t, because all ages result from calculations that necessarily involve making assumptions about the past.

True assumptions are made, however those assumptions are based on the well known knowledge of observations and facts based in chemistry and physics, or more specifically geophysics and geochemistry. Keep in mind that none of those assumptions are blindly applied. Remember, knowing the sun will rise each day is an assumption. The assumptions applied in age dating methods are just as solid as the sun rising each day. They have never been known not to occur.

Always the starting time of the “clock” has to be assumed

That is never assumed in the context that you present it. In fact, such information is at all necessary. However, specific isotopes used in radiometric dating have ranges in which they are effective. It would be inappropriate to use an isotope in a range that is not suited for that effective range.

as well as the way in which the speed of the clock has varied over time.

Now talk about assumptions, that is based on pure fantasy with zero evidence. The universe functions by the natural laws of physics. Any variation in decay rates would be detectable. Furthermore, decay rates have been measured in supernovae millions of light years from Earth. Those measured decay rates are the same as observed presently on Earth.

Further, it has to be assumed that the clock was never disturbed.

That is really not the case as there are many methods and techniques for detecting disturbances, i.e. metamorphic disturbance.

Ages of millions of years are all calculated by assuming the rates of change of processes in the past were the same as we observe today—called the principle of uniformitarianism.

In the context presented that is completely false. Do not associate antiquated 18th and 19th understanding of geology with what is known today.

If the age calculated from such assumptions disagrees with what they think the age should be, they conclude that their assumptions did not apply in this case, and adjust them accordingly.[/quote]

Again, another misleading statement. Improper methods yield incorrect results. If a geochronology lab does not have all the necessary information from the sample provider for applying the correct method to dating a speciman, the wrong method could be applied.

If the calculated result gives an acceptable age, the investigators publish it.

Only when those results are quantified. Also keep in mind that when publishing results in the scientific literature margins of error are always reported.

Dating is done with the preconceived notion that the Earth started off as a molten blob.

That is 100% false. Whether the earth was molten or not when first formed has no bearing on dating methods. None whatsoever.

The Bible says the Earth was initially covered in water. Dating would be completely different depending on the assumptions about the initial state of the planet.

Let's stick to the topic. Okay?

There are many biological, geological, isotopic, astronomical and historical phenomena that challenge the old Earth and Universe paradigm. It's way too many to describe here, however.

And none of those challenges come from any legitimate scientific literature. NONE.

I don't mean to start any debate here. Just stating some reasons for what I believe.

Does it not concern you that the information you posted is extremely flawed and incorrect and comes from non-science sources?

 

[USincognito]

I wonder how much it cost them to get the reading on that sample by the time they figured it all out. It maybe a nice toy for rich people, but it's more then us poor folk can afford.

Nice red herring Jazer/norman321, but that doesn't address the fact that the Oklo natural reactor existed and shows that decay rates haven't changed in at least a billion years.

 

[Doveaman]

I believe in the young Earth and Universe hypothesis.

Although age indicators are called “clocks” they aren’t, because all ages result from calculations that necessarily involve making assumptions about the past. Always the starting time of the “clock” has to be assumed as well as the way in which the speed of the clock has varied over time. Further, it has to be assumed that the clock was never disturbed.

Ages of millions of years are all calculated by assuming the rates of change of processes in the past were the same as we observe today—called the principle of uniformitarianism. If the age calculated from such assumptions disagrees with what they think the age should be, they conclude that their assumptions did not apply in this case, and adjust them accordingly. If the calculated result gives an acceptable age, the investigators publish it.

Dating is done with the preconceived notion that the Earth started off as a molten blob. The Bible says the Earth was initially covered in water. Dating would be completely different depending on the assumptions about the initial state of the planet.

There are many biological, geological, isotopic, astronomical and historical phenomena that challenge the old Earth and Universe paradigm. It's way too many to describe here, however.

The evolutionary ideas are built up around the age given by the radiometric date for the Earth. A naturalistic explanation of origins is dependent on this old age. Because then 'time is the atheist's best friend here'. I don't believe that one can be Christian and believe in evolution at the same time. I firmly believe Jesus Christ rose from the dead after His crucifixion in Golgotha. My young Earth beliefs correspond to this fact as Jesus was labelled the "second Adam". Theistic evolution imo is a self-contradiction. I have a deep respect for scientists who challenge long-standing dogma.

(I don't mean to start any debate here. Just stating some reasons for what I believe.)

Well said, Kim.

 

[The Engineer]

Well said, Kim.

Too bad RickG already refuted all of his points.

 

[Doveaman]

Too bad RickG already refuted all of his points.

I’ll take RickG’s “refute” with a grain of isotopes.

 

[Doveaman]

The video is laughable. How can anyone can be so gullible to think that that represents geologic processes. Geologists are not stupid, the video is.

De Nile is a river in Egypt.

It shows how sediments can be laid down in some cases, which refutes your theory of gradualism and fossil ages.

 

[Doveaman]

You keep citing "dinosaurc14ages.com" as if it were a physics journal or somesuch when it's clearly a Creationist hack website.

How about linking to actual papers rather than Creationist hack websites before lecturing others, o.k.?

The link points out the fact that not all scientists agree with your dating methods. It was not meant to be a scientific paper. Not all scientists agree and they obviously have reasons not to. So do I.

 

[Doveaman]

Either completely deny science in order to furthur your anti-intellectual, anti-knowledge, bring-us-back-to-the-dark-ages agenda; or attempt to use science to prove your hypotheses.... But you can't do both at the same time!

We accept the science that produces useful consumer products. But the pseudoscience that is based on assumptions, speculations, mathemagic and made up fairytales about the past, it can take a hike.

 

[Doveaman]

Just because scientists got something wrong doesn't mean they got everything wrong.

From what I understand, scientists start off wrong and then try to get it right.

So the great flood quickly laid down around ten different geological layers?

Possibly. But even if it was only two or three, your theory about an orderly, successive geological column would still fail.

If you mean by recreation with modification the "fact" that jesus was resurrected, then no, it's not an observed fact.

Jesus was observed to be dead and buried, and He was observed to be alive afterwards. It’s a fact.

You want to know how natural selection works? Okay. Random mutations occur in a population. The well-adapted survive and mate. The not-so-well-adapted members die off. The traits of the well-adapted members get carried into the next generation, and the whole thing begins again.
Accumulate enough of those tiny, beneficial mutations, and you get a new species.

That’s sounds all nice and sweet. If only you could demonstrate it at the macro level.

For your claims to work, the changes must have been consistent over the past. This implies that the earth was in a permanent ice age in the past.

My claims implies that the earth's environment fluctuates drastically between hot and cold, which could cause the decay rates to fluctuate drastically between faster and slower.

If the earth was a dead planet back then, the whole C14 cycle wouldn't make sense, anyway, as far as I can see.

A dead planet would only require a polluted atmosphere and a global freeze, all of which could have been caused by bolide impacts as theorized by some scientists.

The sedimentary layers are mixed up, enough to account for disasters, but not enough to discredit modern geology.

If fossils were often disturbed before being reburied, this would throw off you dating of those fossils.

Many of the events you listed lack the force to penetrate more than a few meters into the earth. Others have enough force, but are too seldom. If volcanoes and meteorites were strong enough to shuffle the sedimentary layers, we would probably still live in an ice age.
And where did you get that thing with the cosmic lightning bolts from? Any energy jet from space that was capable of shuffling several sedimentary layers on earth would have boiled our atmosphere away.

Welcome to the Electric Universe.

*Birkeland currents caused by the interaction of charged bodies might act like plasma torches, excavating the bedrock, and then drawing it up the secondary discharge vortex. Just as a welding arc accelerates matter against gravity, rock and dust will be hurled into space. Thus, the Grand Canyon’s material is not found in a delta because it is no longer on Earth.

This also means that it could be far younger than its estimated millions of years, since radiometric dating systems would have been completely randomized by the electromagnetic effects of interplanetary lightning bolts. Therefore, fossils and stratigraphic placement need to be seen from a catastrophic viewpoint and may be useless when it comes to measuring their absolute age.* - Source

Only if the decay rate was roughly 10000 times quicker would it be consistent with the biblical age of the earth, and at that point, every life form would boil to death!

You are making a strawman argument here. The Bible says nothing about the age of the earth.

Wrong! They are only less reliable. They are not completely unreliable.

Okay then, your dating method is less reliable.

You don't get it, do you? Without a reality model, we would not even KNOW reality!

When “reality models” contradict each other, it makes you wonder why they are called “reality models”.

Maybe because that took several million years?

That’s an excuse, not a reason.

By the way, I looked it up. Speciation has been observed. There's even a mosquito that lives exclusively in the London underground.
We can observe natural selection. We can observe mutation. It all points to the evolution of species.

Except that you have never observed the macro evolution of species, which is what we creationists have a problem with.

 

[RickG]

I’ll take RickG’s “refute” with a grain of isotopes.

That is because you are completely unfamiliar with any radiometric or non radiometric dating method, or any of the general principals of physical chemistry and physics. Nothing you have stated is supported by any of the scientific literature. In fact, the information you have posted concerning the topic is riddled with deception and false claims.

This sub-forum is a physical science forum. You have presented nothing from any legitimate science source that supports anything you have posted. If you wish to establish any form of credibility toward the topic, I suggest discussing and defending what you post from credible sources. The only credible scientific citations you have made do not support the claims you posted, not in the slightest.

 

[The Engineer]

I’ll take RickG’s “refute” with a grain of isotopes.

Whether you like it or not is completely irrelevant, unless you can show us why it doesn't make sense.

You remind me of the religious pigeon meme, or whatever it is called.

We accept the science that produces useful consumer products. But the pseudoscience that is based on assumptions, speculations, mathemagic and made up fairytales about the past, it can take a hike.

Those two fields are very closely related, you know that? In fact, they aren't separated at all. Scientists acquire knowledge, and they use it. You can't just leave the first part out.

If you want to refute scientific theories, you can try, but so far, all your attempts were futile.

From what I understand, scientists start off wrong and then try to get it right.

For you, right and wrong is a binary state: Either a theory is wrong, or it's right. What you don't understand is that an almost flawless theory can still be improved.

Possibly. But even if it was only two or three, your theory about an orderly, successive geological column would still fail.

You didn't get my point, did you?

What I said was a comment about how improbable it would be for a great flood to lay down ten different, ordered sedimentary layers.

Jesus was observed to be dead and buried, and He was observed to be alive afterwards. It’s a fact.

It was observed by people who have been dead for over a thousand years, and they weren't even alive in Jesus' life time, for all I know.

That’s sounds all nice and sweet. If only you could demonstrate it at the macro level.

What you describe as the macro level is speciation, and it has been observed.

Accepting that minor changes are possible, but denying that they can accumulate to the point where they make a huge difference, is irrational.

My claims implies that the earth's environment fluctuates drastically between hot and cold, which could cause the decay rates to fluctuate drastically between faster and slower.

Your claims were refuted by RickG. The rates don't fluctuate, they oscillate.

And you didn't get my point. I told you that if they would get slower and quicker all the time, then there would be an average value. What's even more interesting is that we could then cross-reference the C14 decay with the temperature to get results.

Please don't respond to this before you haven't read what RickG posted. He refuted your premises, I showed you that even if we accept your premises, the conclusions are still absolutely absurd.

A dead planet would only require a polluted atmosphere and a global freeze, all of which could have been caused by bolide impacts as theorized by some scientists.

Again, no answer to my question. If the earth was a dead planet until 10000 years ago (or however old you think the earth is), then radiocarbodating would not work, anyway.

If fossils were often disturbed before being reburied, this would throw off you dating of those fossils.

Not really. Just because the order of the sediments is disturbed in some places doesn't mean it's completely unrecognizable.

Welcome to the Electric Universe.

*Birkeland currents caused by the interaction of charged bodies might act like plasma torches, excavating the bedrock, and then drawing it up the secondary discharge vortex. Just as a welding arc accelerates matter against gravity, rock and dust will be hurled into space. Thus, the Grand Canyon’s material is not found in a delta because it is no longer on Earth.

This also means that it could be far younger than its estimated millions of years, since radiometric dating systems would have been completely randomized by the electromagnetic effects of interplanetary lightning bolts. Therefore, fossils and stratigraphic placement need to be seen from a catastrophic viewpoint and may be useless when it comes to measuring their absolute age.* - Source

Why do you suddenly accept scientific ideas that don't give you toothpaste? You deny science, yet you use it when it serves you.

By the way, the source claims that the Grand Canyon could be far younger than expected, not that this is the case on the whole earth. Your argument is still invalid.

You are making a strawman argument here. The Bible says nothing about the age of the earth.

How is refuting a position that a lot of people on this forum share a strawman argument?

Do you believe in the young earth, or do you not? If you believe it was 10000 years old and that radioactive decay was 10000 times quicker in the past, than you must believe the earth would melt. How about you address this point without

Okay then, your dating method is less reliable.

Again, RickG refuted that.
And if it was less reliable, that would mean it was off by less than a percent.

When “reality models” contradict each other, it makes you wonder why they are called “reality models”.

How do they contradict each other, if I may ask?

That’s an excuse, not a reason.

No, it's not an excuse.

If we actually DID observe a fly become a cat, THAT would discredit evolution. The little changes we see are completely consistent with the theory.

Now, please tell me, what makes you think that tiny changes which get accumulated over the course of several million years couldn't have a huge impact? Don't tell me it has never been observed that a cat turned into a kangraoo or something like that, that's irrelevant. All the necessary mechanisms for macroevolution have been observed, what makes you think macroevolution can't happen, then?

I repeat myself. Everything that would cause macroevolution has been observed, including speciation. What makes you think it couldn't happen, then?

If you had a nail, a hammer and twenty wooden boards, could you turn them into a fence?

I guess your answer was "yes". Is this just because you observed it in action? Or do you know that by connecting the wooden boards together by hammering the nails into them, you can create shapes?

It's the same with macroevolution. Mutations have been observed (including beneficial ones), natural selection has been observed, speciation has been observed. What's missing? Nothing, that's what's missing!

Except that you have never observed the macro evolution of species, which is what we creationists have a problem with.

I told you, it has been observed. You even answered to this!

 

[RickG]

The video shows that layers of strata can be laid down at the same time rapidly and not necessarily successively over eons, which indicates that some fossils in the top layers could be older than fossils in the bottom layers or that both fossils are the same age.

The video demonstrates no such thing. Layers accumulate one over the other. A a sedimentary layer cannot form under an earlier laid layer. Younger fossils cannot be laid down below older layers, unless of course, there is a massive thrust fault, which is easily recognized and not sedimentation.

 

[Guy1]

Whether you like it or not is completely irrelevant, unless you can show us why it doesn't make sense.

You remind me of the religious pigeon meme, or whatever it is called.

This is the meme you're thinking of:

 

[Doveaman]

That is because you are completely unfamiliar with any radiometric or non radiometric dating method, or any of the general principals of physical chemistry and physics. Nothing you have stated is supported by any of the scientific literature. In fact, the information you have posted concerning the topic is riddled with deception and false claims.

This sub-forum is a physical science forum. You have presented nothing from any legitimate science source that supports anything you have posted. If you wish to establish any form of credibility toward the topic, I suggest discussing and defending what you post from credible sources. The only credible scientific citations you have made do not support the claims you posted, not in the slightest.

First of all, I don't depend on scientific papers to determine what I believe. My beliefs are dependent on the divinely inspired papers. If the science contradicts those papers the science can take a hike.

Secondly, even if that scientific paper is flawed it does not change the fact that there are a number of scientists who reject your dating method based on their own observations. If you guys can't even agree, why should I? I'm not a scientists, so I may not fully understand all the disagreements and arguments going on between you guys regarding your dating method, but the fact that scientists disagree on the method gives me every reason to doubt it.

Thirdly, the assumptions you have to make for your dating method to be accurate are ridiculous. You don't know what the composition of ancient rocks was to begin with. You blindly assume it. And gradualism is a even more ridiculous idea on a planet bombarded by natural catastrophes throughout the earth's history, some known and unknown.

The fact that your dating method contradicts the divinely inspired papers, and contradicts the observations of other scientists, and is based on ridiculous and laughable assumptions, this gives me every reason to reject your silly, myopic method.

The video demonstrates no such thing. Layers accumulate one over the other. A a sedimentary layer cannot form under an earlier laid layer. Younger fossils cannot be laid down below older layers, unless of course, there is a massive thrust fault, which is easily recognized and not sedimentation.

Nonsense.

The experiment showed layers being laid down on top each other simultaneously as the water currents carried the sediment along.

This is just another example of scientists disagreeing with scientists. No wonder creationists don't place much confidence in you guys. You don't even place much confidence in yourselves, except when you agree.

 

[The Engineer]

First of all, I don't depend on scientific papers to determine what I believe. My beliefs are dependent on the divinely inspired papers. If the science contradicts those papers the science can take a hike.

And that's why none of us takes you seriously.

Secondly, even if that scientific paper is flawed it does not change the fact that there are a number of scientists who reject your dating method based on their own observations.

Source?

If you guys can't even agree, why should I? I'm not a scientists, so I may not fully understand all the disagreements and arguments going on between you guys regarding your dating method, but the fact that scientists disagree on the method gives me every reason to doubt it.

Except you can't even show that there's no scientific consensus regarding radiocarbodating. You didn't post one peer reviewed paper, except for one which refuted your own argument.

Thirdly, the assumptions you have to make for your dating method to be accurate are ridiculous. You don't know what the composition of ancient rocks was to begin with. You blindly assume it. And gradualism is a even more ridiculous idea on a planet bombarded by natural catastrophes throughout the earth's history, some known and unknown.

Again, you can assume that the laws of nature don't just change for no reason at all.

The fact that your dating method contradicts the divinely inspired papers,

Except they weren't divinely inspired.

and contradicts the observations of other scientists,

You still haven't posted a peer reviewed paper as a proof, just pre-digested false information fed to you by ridiculous creationist websites.

and is based on ridiculous and laughable assumptions, this gives me every reason to reject your silly, myopic method.
Nonsense.

Your distrust on them is based on the assumption that the laws of nature could change any moment, for no reason at all. Talk about paranoia.

The experiment showed layers being laid down on top each other simultaneously as the water currents carried the sediment along.

You teach him about science, even though you disagree with scientists and have no idea about any scientific topic whatsoever?

This is just another example of scientists disagreeing with scientists. No wonder creationists don't place much confidence in you guys. You don't even place much confidence in yourselves, except when you agree.

............................................________
....................................,.-'"...................``~.,
.............................,.-"..................................."-.,
.........................,/...............................................":,
.....................,?......................................................,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:"........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(....."~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_...."~,_........"~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......"=,_......."-,_.......,.-~-,},.~";/....}
...........((.....*~_......."=-._......";,,./`..../"............../
...,,,___.`~,......"~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-"
............/.`~,......`-...................................../
.............`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....,__
,,_..........}.>-._...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,__......`,.................................
...................`=~-,,.,...............................
................................`:,,...........................`..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_..........._,-%.......`
...................................,


You know what's funny? It's the fact that you admit to not having any idea at all about scientific topics, yet you arbitrarily choose which scientific ideas are valid and which aren't.

Sometimes, the best thing to do is just to have no opinion on a topic because you don't understand the topic.

 

[Doveaman]

You know what's funny? It's the fact that you admit to not having any idea at all about scientific topics, yet you arbitrarily choose which scientific ideas are valid and which aren't.

Sometimes, the best thing to do is just to have no opinion on a topic because you don't understand the topic.

Nonsense.

Everyone has an idea about science. It's not that difficult. That's why we do experiments that produce results we can relate to in the real world and not rely on mathemagic and fairytales about the past.

In addition, if we know A is correct we don't need to understand B to know it's wrong.

If the Bible says A and science says B, then B is wrong. Period.

Of course there are some scientific theories that do not contradict A, those are the theories I can accept. The other theories can take a hike.

 

[Elendur]

Nonsense.

Everyone has an idea about science. It's not that difficult. That's why we do experiments that produce results we can relate to in the real world and not rely on mathemagic and fairytales about the past.

In addition, if we know A is correct we don't need to understand B to know it's wrong.

If the Bible says A and science says B, then B is wrong. Period.

Of course there are some scientific theories that do not contradict A, those are the theories I can accept. The other theories can take a hike.

And your A is based upon your personal belief. How does that add up objectively?

 

[The Engineer]

Everyone one has an idea about science. It's not that difficult. That's why we do experiments that produce results we can relate to in the real world and not rely on mathemagic and fairytales about the past.

Experiments were not invented so people like you could understand science. They were invented to test hypotheses.

By the way, if everyone has an idea about science, as you claim, then why do any attempts of you at using science to make your point fail spectacularly?

In addition, if we know A is correct we don't need to understand B to know it's wrong.

You sound like the caricature of a creationist, you know that? I'm starting to think you're an atheist in disguise.

If the Bible says A and science says B, then B is wrong. Period.

Can you please leave my internet?

Of course there are some scientific theories that do not contradict A, those are the theories I can accept. The other theories can take a hike.

You're the very definition of an opportunist! Science is wrong, unless it serves your purpose!

How can you accept ANY scientific theory if the bad, bad scientists can't agree on anything, as you say? Shouldn't this also discredit the scientific theories that don't contradict the bible?

 

[Doveaman]

And your A is based upon your personal belief. How does that add up objectively?

The A is based upon the divinely inspired record of history. God said it, therefore they are facts.

We can then measure all theories against those historical facts to determine which theories are acceptable and which ones are not.

It's not that difficult.