As I mentioned in my post "This is (not) the End" I hadn't realized that non-biblical source material supported a young earth dating conclusion. If you Google: problems with evolutionary ages you can find all sorts of information on the topic. I'm going to skip the evolutionary problems and address the part of the topic I understand best. What I'm taking a crack at is some of the problems with Young Earth (YE) dating methods and chronologies. You did know that there are scholastic problems with arriving at a YE date of creation that have nothing to do with evolutionary theory, right?
The human race generally accepts certain basic elements of time keeping. In ascending order they are seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, and years. When talking about large periods of time we generally skip over the minor units minuets, hours etc and we establish larger units like decades, centuries or millennium to group large numbers of years together. Certain time units are near universal, these are; the day, week, month and year. While each week is always made up of seven days, a month is lunar measurement spanning the time it takes for the moon to go through all its phases. The year is the amount of time it takes the earth to make one complete orbit of the sun. None of the three units; the week, month and year, perfectly coordinate with each other. This creates a great deal of confusion when creating calendars and recording events.
The problem of dating gets bigger when you consider that
most ancient people didn't have a calendar the way we understand the concept. Traditionally things were dated according to
events in a relational comparison. For
example, "in the third year of Darius the king, such and such
happened" is one very common method of establishing a time line. That method was all well and good, if you had
a clue as to when the third year was in relation to where you are in the time
line. Very few cultures established
something like a Mayan long form calendar.
A brief break down of some calendars can be found here.
Two other difficulties come up as well. First most civilizations made no effort to
date things that happened before their time.
Roman calendars only went back to the founding of Rome. They also were notoriously inaccurate in that
they only measured part of the year.
Second, successive civilizations didn't always preserve the data of the
civilization they replaced. So record
keeping often has gaps, sometimes those gaps are large.
The civil calendar we use today is the Gregorian Calendar. This is sometimes called the Christian or
Western Calendar. One of the purposes of
this calendar was to homogenize historical timeliness as well as provide a more
accurate alignment of lunar and solar calendars. Some other considerations were
"fixing" the Julian Calendar and eliminating the Jewish influence in Christian
beliefs. (That was also a consideration
in the Julian Calendar as well). Even
though both of these calendars are supposed to harmonize the time keeping of
the Christian world, they have several issues that create errors. Which is one of the reasons that Jesus, whose
birthdate is supposed to be year zero according to Christian belief, was really born
around 4 B.C. according to the Gregorian Calendar.
Biblical dating follows the relational time keeping model
common throughout the ancient world. It
gives no consideration whatsoever to the "Christian Calendar". Jewish calendars try to present an annualized
time line starting in year zero and counting forward to today (year 5773). However in the Bible we actually have several
time periods that are non-reflective of civil dating as we understand the
concept today. That makes it necessary
to try to fit the events in the Bible with the civil calendar. This creates its own problems.
The Bible covers several distinct time periods. Those main periods are: Creation week,
pre-fall, pre-flood, post flood, Abraham to captivity, the exodus, the judges,
the monarchy, captivity, the restored nation, time of Christ. For the most part one can follow the time line
backwards from modern times to the time of Abraham with little difficulty. Archaeology and non-biblical recorded history
have several common points that touch multiple events and make it possible to develop
a plausible time line to Abraham. After
that it gets tricky.
How tricky? The Bible
only gives three independent traceable events between Adam and Abraham to use
for timeline verification. There is also
a problem of linguistics and translation, more on that latter. The three potentially historical events traceable
in the Genesis are: 1. The Flood, 2. The division of the landmass into continents
and 3. The founding of Babylon and the destruction of the tower of Babal. Of
those three events only one (the flood) is widely recorded throughout human
experience. While the flood is widely recorded,
nobody seems to have put much thought into sticking a date on it. The Flood is widely recognized as a
historical event but most civilizations see that record as a prehistorical mythology
as opposed to a fixed point in time. Babylon
and the tower of babal are historical facts, however the archaeology evidence
isn't conclusive as far as fixing a solid date is concerned.
Bishop Ussher calculated the beginning of the earth at 4004
BC, Keppler came up with 3993 BC Melanchthon had 3964 BC and Martin Luther
arrived at 3961 BC. That’s a 43 year
difference (4004-3961=43). So how did that happen? In part we don't know. Ussher failed to keep his notes and
"show his work" so we can't redo his calculations. Part of the
problem comes when comparing source documents and translations. Using a
Masoretic text (and operating with a certain set of assumptions) you come out
closer to 4,000 BC; if you use the Septuagint you arrive at a number closer to
5,000BC. Which is right? We don't know.
All of these difficulties come before we address things
like: day age theory (the belief that a day recorded in Genesis chapters 1 and
2 is really a long period of time), generational gap (the fact that not every
generation is recorded in some ancient genealogies), the long life spans
recorded pre-flood, etc. If we take
Ussher's date of 4004 BC and add 2012 to it we get an age of 6,016 years which
is 243 years more than the Jews who are using the same book as the Christians
to arrive at the same point in time (6,016-5773=243). There are other Christian sources that will
give dates that provide an even bigger time spread. I use Ussher because he is the most recognized
source.
For some 243 years may seem like a big deal. However, Charles Darwin in his book: On the
Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of
Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, originally proposed something in the
area of 100,000 years for the age of the universe. I believe today evolutionists are guessing
someplace in area of billions and billions of years. Creationists have entire sets of assumptions
that they are relying on as do evolutionists.
The creationist margin of error, isn't even in the same ball park as the
evolutionist when you compare the orders of magnitude in terms of "fudge
factor". To me the statement that
the earth is less than 10,000 years old is a rational one based on evidence from
a reliable source that claims to be a firsthand account. Do I accept this on faith? Yes absolutely. Every other historical statement in the book
has been proven true by archeology and historical cross-reference. Why would I suddenly decide that the first book was unreliable?
I take the Bible pretty seriously, and I see very little support for a "young earth" interpretation of Genesis. I think the creation story makes more sense if the time-line is very long (thousands to millions of years). Regardless, there are numerous textual clues in Scripture that strongly hint at the earth being old. For example; in Genesis five there are only ten generations between Adam and Noah, and given how long people lived (note the recorded ages) these folks would have practically been contemporaries of each other (Noah was born 20 years after Adam died). And looking at the other genealogies, Noah and Abraham would have been alive at the same time, but the text doesn't read like all these people were alive at the same time.
ReplyDelete-Bill
I haven't really thought out my position. I suppose I should, given that I will have to decide what to teach my kids soon.
ReplyDeleteI have read some books that argue for young earth. I haven't found them particularly compelling.
As far as the Bible, yes it is historically accurate. (There are some problems but it is surprising how often they are resolved in favor of the Bible. I don't know of any cases where the Bible was proven wrong.) But I also don't know that it is trying to tell us how old the Earth is.
The problem with just accepting an old Earth is, what do you also have to accept along with it? Evolution? Abiogenesis?
One of the more mind boggling implications of the theory of relativity is that the universe was CREATED at the same instant, but due to relativistic effects it is not all the same age. Time doesn't pass uniformly and it all depends on your frame of reference. Created in 7 days? 7 days from what point of reference? How long is a day when the earth hasn't been created yet? Perhaps when trying to understand the implications of that it is just easier to remain agnostic.
I’m a firm believer in 7 literal 24 hr days. However, I also realize that there are some things that we don’t have enough information on to draw a firm conclusion. This post only outlines a few of the things surrounding the dating issue. I can break down several other issues of biblical scholarship that we just don’t have enough information to give an absolute answer on.
ReplyDeleteI think one of the mistakes some Christians have made over the years is trying to be dogmatic about issues that a rational person would admit are inconclusive. I’ve learned to accept that there are some issues that I don’t know and can’t put together an airtight answer for. BTW we can’t do that for lots of other things, why get upset about it when we encounter the same thing with our faith?
I had a teacher in school (private Christian school) that challenged us with this statement: “I’m not concerned with what you believe as much as I’m concerned that you know why you believe what you believe”. I wish I caught on sooner to what he was getting at. It would have changed some of my thinking for the better, sooner.
Good analysis on the problems with reconciling times and historical recordings. Well done.
ReplyDeleteI would only add one more element, and that is the lack of a written language before these times. It is difficult to convey abstract ideas like long periods of time (and the concrete events subsequently associated with them) without a way of permanently recording them. The Mayan long calendar used pictograms to do so, but what of other ancient cultures?
Examine the cave paintings in France and Spain (some of which have been dated to 35,000-40,000 years old), and you won't find any such concepts of time there. It doesn't necessarily mean they didn't have any idea of time, just that it doesn't seem to be represented by these images.
“lack of a written language…abstract ideas like long periods…way of permanently recording them.”
ReplyDeleteI realize that I hold a very minority position in Christendom as far as my world view is concerned. Other than a couple of guys like Chuck Misler, I haven’t even heard anyone else espousing some of the beliefs I’ve developed over the years.
Bill hit on a point in his post that (for me any) explains some of the method of conveying data issues that a civilization would need. Adam didn’t start having kids till he was 130 years old. Those kids didn’t start having kids until 100 plus years of age either. That means that Adam was still alive into the 8th generation. When did they begin to write stuff down? I have no idea. I suspect that Eve invented the “honey do” list, as a result of sin entering the world. :-) However, when you have 7 or 8 generations alive at one time, you have tremendous access to the data that those people have simply by asking them.
A couple of other points:
1. IF the pre-flood peoples had writing (I think they did) there is no reason to suspect that it would survive thousands of years, unless it was in some medium that would also last that long.
2. If they had a medium that would preserve their writings, like carving them into stone, what would they think important enough to record? I think they may have been like us and thought that some information was so common knowledge that they might not make any effort to preserve it at all. Yesterday at work all of the calendars from 2012 were in the trash. At one time all the little notes on them were vital to our office, now its all in the dumpster. Some place around here I have a number of papers I wrote for college and grad school. It was brilliant stuff at the time, but I would be hard pressed to reproduce even a small percentage of my scholastic work if I was required to. I tend to think that most people, and most civilizations are the same way.
Whats w/ all the dbl talk? Its lk I sd u dont fkn kn & r full of BS!
ReplyDeleteAnon,
ReplyDeleteIsn't your public school back from Christmas break yet? Grow up.
Res,
I drop in alot but don't say much. I don't get what your talking about. If you believe in the Bible, why do you have so many points that make it look like the Bible isn't 100% understandable? If you say the earth was made in 7 days and not 1,000,000 years, OK I get that, but why so much info on the other stuff, like your world view?
Just asking.
Ben
"1. IF the pre-flood peoples had writing (I think they did) there is no reason to suspect that it would survive thousands of years, unless it was in some medium that would also last that long."
ReplyDeleteThat depends on which ancient cultures you consider "pre-Flood", as well as whether or not there existed other languages prior to the confusion of tongues at Babel.
Scholars place the Flood somewhere between 4,000 and 5,000 years ago (Ussher's date = 2348 BC, 4361 years ago). But the earliest found writings, such as the Tărtăria tablets, go back possibly as far as 5300-5500 BC, making them older than the Flood. And these particular tablets were originally unbaked when they were found, meaning they were fragile and would have been subject to destruction by flood waters had they not been buried (or otherwise protected) prior to the devastation.
There are many such writings found in various places that appear to date to pre-Flood times, so the answer would seem to be yes.
"2. If they had a medium that would preserve their writings, like carving them into stone..."
Some were carved into stone, but others, like the aforementioned tablets, were carved into clay tablets. Some of those were made permanent by baking, and such cuneiform writings dating back to about 3350 BC have been found, again pre-Flood. Papyrus also started being used in Egypt pre-Flood, with some of the oldest surviving examples of ancient papyrii dating back to Neferirkare Kakai, who was Pharoah from 2475–2455 BC. Understandably, fewer of these exist than the hardier clay tablets.
"...what would they think important enough to record?"
Many different things ranging from the deeds of kings to the sublime measures of accountants.
But it's not the writings of these people which I ponder about so much as it is the lack of writing of those who came before them, archaeologically speaking. For instance, those cave drawings I mentioned that seem to pre-date Creation itself by the Young Earth timeline. These are far more difficult to reconcile, ideologically speaking. But the absence of a system of writing to accompany the drawings means little can be known about them beyond what can be ascertained from the art.
Well, there goes the neighborhood!
ReplyDelete"The problem with just accepting an old Earth is, what do you also have to accept along with it? Evolution? Abiogenesis?"
ReplyDeleteThese are all independent things, but Evolution and Abiogenesis are linked by worldview.
I believe that God created the heavens and the earth, and everything in them, some unknown but probably really long time ago. For you "seven day" guys, some questions;
1) When was Satan created and when did he fall?
2) How much time passed between creation and the fall?
3) Since physical birth and death were apparently happening in the Garden, how does that square with your view of the Garden?
And some other issues that I think only make sense if you read Genesis one and two as a metaphor;
1) When God made light and dark on day one, and then made the sun and moon on day four, what does "light" and "dark" mean? And how do the sun and moon "rule"?
2) Why the phrasing "there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day." Doesn't that describe night, and purposely exclude the day?
3) And what does it mean that God spoke some things into existence (light, dark, son, moon, Man) and then we have "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds". What does that mean? Why didn't God speak critters into existence?
These are just a few of the problems I have with a "seven literal day" interpretation. I really, honestly, does not make sense to me. It makes perfect sense when viewed as God creating things in order, and with purpose, and as part of a larger plan. And, the numbers really matter. It does not matter how many actual days it took, the important thing is that it is expressed as seven days. You miss the importance of this if you force a "literal" interpretation on it. If God did do it in seven days, the reason was that it had to be seven, to emphasize that number. And the other numbers matter too.
-Bill
There's no year zero in the Gregorian calendar.
ReplyDeleteRight, I always seem to forget that when I do those BC-AD calculations....
ReplyDeleteBill, that is where I'm at. I think Genesis can be interpreted in favor of an old earth. I guess I lean that way. But I don't pretend to have studied it enough to do like Res said, and "know what I believe and why I believe it".
ReplyDeleteAnon,
ReplyDeleteYou are free to say whatever you like here. You don't have to agree with me or anybody else. I tried to ignore you on the last thread but come on already but forth something constructive or shut up.
Ben,
ReplyDeleteThanks for stoping in.
I don't think I have all the answers to everything. Other than God, I don't think anybody else does either. To my way of thinking it's OK to explore these ideas. Over the years I've changed my mind about what I believe because I'm willing to keep thinking about this stuff.
Its one thing to have faith that something is 100% true, which I do. Its another to figure out what that truth is, which is what I keep trying to do.
World view is simply how you see the world. Its all the assumptions you take for granted when you think about stuff and make decisions. I try to be up front about what assumptions I have. Which I why I stated them.
Waterboy, Bill & Astro,
ReplyDeleteI'm pressed for time. I'll try to get back to your points latter tonight.
No rush, man. And I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else to change their mind; as you know, I just find it interesting to discuss these things.
ReplyDeleteWaterboy,
ReplyDeleteMy first reaction to the cave painting example was to question the dating method. After I thought about it though, that isn’t really the point. I’m not sure which cave painting example you had in mind, as there are several. The one I thought of was the one they found inside a sealed cave that had high humidity and the paint was still wet. I don’t really know what to do with the cave paintings, partly because they don’t have enough context to give us many clues. The first problem is that we don’t know who did them. My son draws pictures about going hunting with me. If someone unearths those 5,000 years from now will they believe that we are a primitive hunter gather society living in caves? I guess I’m not sure the cave art has much to tell us. The art we find in temples, pyramids etc, is more useful because it has a context. I don’t think that cave art can do much for either the YE or evolution cases.
The info on the tartaria tablets was very interesting. While it lends credibility to my thoughts on man’s writing ability at that time; it doesn’t provide much support for anything else, unless they were to prove that the writing was from the same language family as Sumerian. That would be ground breaking because it would prove a migration of people from the fertile crescent to Europe at a date that would be much earlier than currently thought.
Bill,
ReplyDelete1) When was Satan created and when did he fall?
The exact date is unknown, arguably sometime prior to tempting Eve in the garden. There are those who believe that the creation of man was the reason for Satan’s rebellion, as well as that of some of the angles.
2) How much time passed between creation and the fall?
Unknown. Adam’s age at the birth of his son is 130 years and Eve was told she would have pain in child bearing. I assume the fall happened between 0 and 130 years beyond that I have no way of guessing.
3) Since physical birth and death were apparently happening in the Garden, how does that square with your view of the Garden?
I don’t see birth in the garden as playing a role in the question, since procreation was an expectation of God. If there never was sin, everything still would be procreating after its kind. I’m not aware that death, of any living creature occurred prior to the fall. Could you point me towards a verse so I can check that out?
1) When God made light and dark on day one, and then made the sun and moon on day four, what does "light" and "dark" mean? And how do the sun and moon "rule"?
The phrase “Light and dark” means light and the absence of light. You can have light from sources other than the sun. 1 Tim 6:16 says that God lives in “unapproachable light”. Perhaps the source of the light was God Himself. I think the word “rule” just means that when the sun is out, you know its daytime and that the moon indicates that its night. These two bodies are the brightest things in the sky.
2) Why the phrasing "there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day." Doesn't that describe night, and purposely exclude the day? The Jews (and others) understood a day to begin and end at sundown. We use midnight to midnight. I think this is an idiom of speech and not anything to get hung up on.
3) And what does it mean that God spoke some things into existence (light, dark, son, moon, Man) and then we have "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds". What does that mean? Why didn't God speak critters into existence?
My guess is that God shortened the storytelling portion and didn’t list by genus and species everything he created.
As far as a literal 7 is concerned, other parts of scripture dedend on it. The reason given for the sabath is that God made the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th.
"I’m not aware that death, of any living creature occurred prior to the fall. Could you point me towards a verse so I can check that out?"
ReplyDeleteGod told Adam that he would die if he ate from the tree, therefore, Adam knew what death was. And, not to belabor the obvious; Satan himself was wandering around the garden temping Eve. So obviously sin and death was there in person. God created carnivorous animals, and Adam named them (eagle, lion, etc).
I maintain that the death that God threatened Adam with if he ate from the tree was spiritual death, not physical death (i.e.; Adam lived for hundreds of years after eating from the tree but was separated from God immediately). Physical death is no big deal, God himself killed animals, plants, and humans, but spiritual death is another matter. Given all this: physical death happened in the garden.
-Bill
Res: "My first reaction to the cave painting example was to question the dating method."
ReplyDeleteGenerally, radiocarbon dating -- which is the same method also used to date many of the artifacts from other cultures which you were citing in support of the Young Earth theory. For example, the Mayan long calendar was correlated to real-time using carbon dating. There's even disagreement over when that correlation can be pinned, varying by as much as 200 years; the "end-of-the-world" scenario may have actually been December 21, 1812 (as noted here). Even then, the difference there is actually quite small and still fits the Young Earth theory.
I just wanted to point out that if radiocarbon dating is to be suspected in dating cave paintings, then it must also be questioned in dating those artifacts which support a Young Earth. On the other hand, if the method is valid for dating some artifacts, then it is also valid for dating the cave paintings to a period more than 6,000 years ago.
Res: "I’m not sure which cave painting example you had in mind, as there are several."
The 35,000-40,000YO drawings which I mentioned are the ones in Cantabria, Spain (Cave of El Castillo), but there are many more such paintings all over the world which date back more than 6,000 years (Cave of Altamira also in Cantabria, 14,000-18,500YO plus 16 other caves in northern Spain; Lascaux, France 17,300YO; more listed here. For these purposes, they are just as valid as artifacts containing written language, since the content is not as important as the mere existence on the timeline before Creation.
I understand that these large ages are your basis for questioning the validity of radiocarbon dating, since it produces dates before the presumed date of Creation according to scripture. But I am not starting with the same base assumption, so questioning its accuracy on that basis is not valid; it must be questioned on its own reliability only. And to me, correlative support for that has come from other dating methodologies (dendrochronology, ice core studies, sedimentation, etc). Even if there is inaccuracy in each of these methods (which there is), the sum total is still sufficient to prove to me that the age of the Earth is much more than ~6,000 YO.
"it must be questioned on its own reliability only"
ReplyDeleteI understand that. Which leaves it open for discussion because the various carbon dating methods still have their own issues with reliability. You are correct that my skepticism of C14 dating is based in my assumption of the scriptural account being correct; however, that doesn’t invalidate the criticism.
Carbon dating claims a useful date range to a maximum of 58,000 to 62,000 years per Wikipedia. Libby, the guy who invented the method received a Nobel prize for his work because he was able to accurately arrive at the date of a barge that was known to be 1,850 BC; in other words a window of about 4,000 years. For anything beyond that age you have to apply one of the various statistical norming methods in addition to the calibration techniques to a known age material.
Assuming the evolutionary model for a minute, if correct, carbon dating should be valid even with the various mathematical adjustments required to 50,000 years. This assumes that the carbon foot print would be the same inside the entire 50,000 year period. Again according to the evolutionary model Pennsylvanian coal deposits were formed 300 million years ago. According to C14 methodology, those coal deposits should return an infinite carbon age when measured, i.e. un-dateable. However, they always arrive at an age of less than 10,000 years. You then are left with a couple logical outcomes: carbon concentrations have not been consistent for the last 50,000 years, if true we don’t know what they are and therefore we must throw out the methodology; or there is some flaw in the methodology that we currently employ which means that all dates older than 10,000 years must be questioned; or coal is younger than the evolutionary model, if true all sedimentary layers above the coal and fossils found in the coal layer, are younger than believed. Potentially the last point would be devastating to the evolutionary model, rendering it and the assumed fossil dating methods untenable.
More material: Wiki.Answers
Glen W. Chapman
Anyway, my objection to C14 dating is based on more than the fact that it doesn't fit my model.
Bill,
ReplyDeleteAnd, not to belabor the obvious; Satan himself was wandering around the garden temping Eve. So obviously sin and death was there in person. God created carnivorous animals, and Adam named them (eagle, lion, etc).
I understand your point that sin in Satan and the possibility of death existed but thats not the same as the material world and man being in sin and being under the curse of sin and death.
Res: "This assumes that the carbon foot print would be the same inside the entire 50,000 year period."
ReplyDeleteNot sure exactly what you mean by "carbon foot print"...but if I read you correctly, it hasn't been "the same" over that 50,000 year period. The amount of ambient C14 in the atmosphere is known to have varied considerably over periods of time; it's precisely why those mathematical adjustments (more specifically, calibration curves) are required.
Res: "Pennsylvanian coal deposits were formed 300 million years ago."
Red flag pending...
Res: "According to C14 methodology, those coal deposits should return an infinite carbon age when measured, i.e. un-dateable."
Theoretically correct so far...
Res: "However, they always arrive at an age of less than 10,000 years."
Red flag thrown.
If you are referring to the "Pennsylvanian" sample which has been quoted by Ken Ham and many others, you should be aware of the mistakes associated with that apocryphal example. The mistranslation of Russian to "coal" rather than "charcoal" (as found in an archaelogical campfire) is the main cause of that mistake.
Now, there have been samples of coal (and diamonds) which did have higher than expected amounts of C14 in them, but it is hardly "always". And a reasonable explanation for it -- dealing with radioactive decay of surrounding rocks -- is described here.
Res: "You then are left with a couple logical outcomes: carbon concentrations have not been consistent for the last 50,000 years, if true we don’t know what they are and therefore we must throw out the methodology"
Already noted as true, above, but are incorporated into calibration curves which mostly account for those differences. Calibration tables are also correlated with other dating methodologies like dendrochronology, as also noted previously. The entire methodology, therefore, does not need to be thrown out.
Res: "or there is some flaw in the methodology that we currently employ which means that all dates older than 10,000 years must be questioned;"
Again, the "Pennsylvanian" example is incorrect, so is not itself grounds for questioning dates older than 10,000 years. It's true that the further back you go, the less accurate the measurement is. But given the calculated half-life of C14, it is theoretically possible to go back even as far as 180,000 years or more, depending on the sensitivity of the measuring device.
Res: "or coal is younger than the evolutionary model, if true all sedimentary layers above the coal and fossils found in the coal layer, are younger than believed."
Invalid conclusion based on invalid input data. Also ignores possibility of contamination from other radioactive sources, as linked to above.
Res: "Potentially the last point would be devastating to the evolutionary model, rendering it and the assumed fossil dating methods untenable."
Potentially, but as the conclusion is invalid based on available evidence, such an effect on the evolutionary model is unwarranted at this time.
But any specific problem associated with the radiocarbon dating method itself still does not invalidate my larger point, which is that all dating methodologies -- from the approximately 48 radiographic dating techniques, to oceanic sedimentation, to sea coral growth rates, to ice cores, to tree rings -- all of these would by necessity have to be invalid to be consistent with a Young Earth. And I just don't see that as a tenable position.
YMMV, of course.
My other comments were not intended as a personal attack, but were simply statements of fact:
ReplyDeleteIf Method A and Method B are at odds, and you consider Method A 100% accurate, then logically something must be wrong with Method B. That is what I perceived you primarily to be basing your objections on, and is perfectly logical to do so given the base assumption.
WB,
ReplyDeleteNo worries, I don’t take any of your criticisms personally.
We started down this road with my doubting C14 dating of cave painting. You came back with: “I just wanted to point out that if radiocarbon dating is to be suspected in dating cave paintings, then it must also be questioned in dating those artifacts which support a Young Earth.” This is true on its face, except I don’t take issue with the ages they generate that are under 10,000 years old, so it doesn’t come into play. According what I’ve read the “best” which I assume means most accurate dates for C14 come when dating material less than 50,000 years old. Your cave painting examples fit into the age range of 10,000 to 40,000 years. So it would seem that these examples would be a slam dunk, but they aren’t. I didn’t know about the Ken Ham deal, but I have seen a lot of coal. The coal info I was using came from UW . Pennsylvanian coal is considered by evolutionists to be one of the younger layers of coal. I intentionally didn’t go after an easy kill like Devonian coal which has almost no carbon value at all. According to that strong hold of creationism Wikipedia , C14 has a half life of 5,730 years (5,730x2=11,460). I’ll buy up to 10,000 years with C14 dating. I can’t see any reason for your 180,000 or even the claimed 50,000 year number.
It’s perfectly logical to doubt C14 dates older than 10,000 years. If you want to insert the leaching theory or the radioactive contamination theory leaching theory or the radioactive contamination theory as a new basis for accepting older C14 dates go ahead, but that’s moving the goal post as far as the cave paintings are concerned.
I guess I should clarify on the coal, the Pennsylvanian is what we mine. I’ve only ever been in Pennsylvanian coal mines. I’ve seen forests of petrified wood still standing in the overburden in a mine. The lab guys test the coal on an ongoing basis although they don’t do C14 dating that often, I’m told that they never get a result that squares with the predicated numbers. We do have other radioactive isotopes in our soil, in commercially viable quantities, so if you want to you could go that route in arguing against my criticism of C14 in coal. But then you have to deal with man made articles that are found in Pennsylvanian coal seems. Of course you can go the early alien visitor route with that if you’d like.
ReplyDeleteRes: "This is true on its face, except I don’t take issue with the ages they generate that are under 10,000 years old, so it doesn’t come into play."
ReplyDeleteI know that's your position, but on what factual standard is it based? Why the discrepancy between valid ages and invalid ages? What is it that sets the line at 10,000 years? Why not 20,000, or 30,000? It gives the appearance of cherry-picking that data which supports your position and dismissing that which doesn't.
Regardless of that, if you accept dates up to 10,000 years, that still brings into question the Ussher chronology of ~6,000 years.
Res: "So it would seem that these examples would be a slam dunk, but they aren’t."
I have not seen any evidence to support this assertion, other than the generic argument against C14 dating reliability. Which, as I said, appears to be cherry-picking because these results > 10,000 years.
Res: "I didn’t know about the Ken Ham deal, but I have seen a lot of coal."
The only time I have ever seen mention of anomolous results of Pennsylvanian coal dating was in conjunction with the Russian report. If you are aware of other specific incidents of Pennsylvanian coal producing <10,000YO results, I would be willing to look into them.
Res: "The coal info I was using came from UW ."
I saw no mention of C14 dating of Pennsylvanian coal at that website. How does the rest of the information presented there fit into the context of inaccurate dating of Pennsylvanian coal?
Res: "I can’t see any reason for your 180,000 or even the claimed 50,000 year number."
That was in the previous article to which I linked:
Their ultimate goal is to reliably measure 14C/C ratios down to the unbelievably low levels of 10-22 (180,000 yrs).
Whether or not it is possible remains to be seen, of course, depending on the accuracy of test intruments. But that's why I said, "theoretically possible". After all, the remaining traces of C14 don't just vanish when they reach the limits of the equipment to detect them -- it just means their concentrations are too low to be detected with that particular equipment.
Res: "It’s perfectly logical to doubt C14 dates older than 10,000 years."
Again, with cross-correlation of other dating methodologies, it isn't logical to question it on a general basis, though it is certainly reasonable to do so on a case-by-case basis. Unless, as I said, you also choose to dismiss those other methodologies, of course. 10,000 years seems to be an arbitrary number not based in fact.
Res: "If you want to insert the leaching theory or the radioactive contamination theory as a new basis for accepting older C14 dates go ahead, but that’s moving the goal post as far as the cave paintings are concerned."
No, those are two different things. I brought up the radioactive contamination only to counter the argument which you put forth for invalid Pennsylvanian coal dating; the contamination factor has nothing to do with the cave paintings, and I made no such assertion related to them...so no goal post moving here.
Furthermore, if the tested pigments used in the cave paintings were contaminated by radioactive decay of uranium, they would actually be even older than the tens of thousands of years to which they presently date, due to the artificial inflation of C14 which would make them appear to be younger. You would thence do doubly well to leave the contamination issue out of the cave painting conundrum.
Res: "But then you have to deal with man made articles that are found in Pennsylvanian coal seems. Of course you can go the early alien visitor route with that if you’d like."
ReplyDeleteLet's leave that particular rabbit hole for another day, shall we? ;)
WB,
ReplyDeleteI’m willing to consider C14 dating to 10,000 or even maybe to 11,500 years because the we know the half life (5,370 years) of C14 AND it has proven itself on objects of known age with in those parameters. According to the dating theory originally deposited C14 in a once living object can still be around UP TO 11,500 years.
In theory every time you do a C14 study you are trying to date those original carbon molecules that were present when the object died. This works great if everything is in a homeostasis and the rates of accumulation were constant and there was no contamination or other radioactive influences. However, you don’t know if other influences were at play.
“inaccurate dating of Pennsylvanian coal?” The UW site explains the current understanding of coal layers and uses the most up to date evolutionary dating explanation. Pennsylvanian coal is the most common commercially exploited coal. So its the one worked with the most often. Its also the most tested and analyzed for content. This is done to satisfy DEQ & EPA and commercial concerns not for research and dating purposes. I don’t have a published report to give you a link to. I didn’t do lab work in the mine when I worked there, but the lab guys I talked to got a kick out of pointing out that the coal they sampled didn’t fit the geologists theory. They weren’t creationists, they were more anti-geologist and anti-biologist than anything. I’m sure they would explain their variations in terms of cross contaminated radioactive particles in the coal samples. Incidentally that’s what your article leans towards as the explanation. Which brings me full circle to my reason for doubting the methodology beyond the 5,370X2 time limit in the first place. Using C14 beyond 10,000 years is like using a ruler to measure the distance to the stars. You have a mathematical approximation of how it should work but no practical way to get there.
I’ve said 10,000 years, so I’ve been sticking to that number. Basically its arbitrary but it fits within a hermeneutically acceptable YE time frame. Nobody really knows how Ussher came up with his numbers, other than they are loosely based on adding up dates in the genealogies. FWIW 11,500 years would also fit, in my view. The most liberal YE views that I’ve heard are up to 25,000 years old. I’m not sure how they get to that number.
I can talk intelligently about aluminum, building power systems, and chickens. I don't know a thing about carbon 14. But. Another thing I can talk intellegently about is Scripture, and I don't recall reading much about carbon 14 in there, except for a brief mention in the first few chapters of Hezekiah.
ReplyDelete-Bill
Res: "According to the dating theory originally deposited C14 in a once living object can still be around UP TO 11,500 years...Which brings me full circle to my reason for doubting the methodology beyond the 5,370X2 time limit in the first place.""
ReplyDeleteAnd this is what I am questioning: why only UP TO 11,500 years?
The half-life (actually 5,730 ± 40 for C14) refers to the amount of time it takes for half of an amount of the substance to decay. After the first 5,730 years, half of the original C14 has decayed. After the second 5,730 years, half of the remaining material has decayed, not all of it; there is still one-fourth (25%) of the original C14 left. After another 5,730 years, there is 12.5% of the original material, then 6.25%, then 3.125%, etc, etc.
Current devices are capable of measuring ratios of C14/C after about 10 half-lifes (0.1% of original C14 remaining), almost 60,000 years. But this is a limitation of the device, not of the process. So I am somewhat puzzled as to why you put a limitation of two half-lifes on the process, instead.
Res: "This works great if everything is in a homeostasis and the rates of accumulation were constant and there was no contamination or other radioactive influences. However, you don’t know if other influences were at play."
Agreed. Which is why the calibration curves were developed, based on cross-correlation of other dating methodologies. The amount of ambient C14 at different times has been calculated from those other samples, so while it isn't 100% accurate to a specific year, a date approximation to a given range of years is possible. But 40,000 ± 100 years is still a far way off from 6,016 (the Ussher number), the 5773 of the Jewish calendar, or any of the other ancient cultures which you were noting.
Res: "I’ve said 10,000 years, so I’ve been sticking to that number. Basically its arbitrary but it fits within a hermeneutically acceptable YE time frame. Nobody really knows how Ussher came up with his numbers, other than they are loosely based on adding up dates in the genealogies. FWIW 11,500 years would also fit, in my view. The most liberal YE views that I’ve heard are up to 25,000 years old. I’m not sure how they get to that number."
Which goes right back to my original point: if Ussher's date and the other cultures that you pointed to in your previous post to support the Young Earth theory, all come up with numbers that are less than that which other dating methodologies have arrived at, how can they be right? How can something already exist before Creation itself, even if you only allow for accurate dating to 11,500 years?
This is why I cannot understand supporting the ideas of Ussher or the Mayans or any other historical account you mentioned which only dates to ~6,000 years. Either they were wrong, or the entire world is.
: "Another thing I can talk intellegently about is Scripture, and I don't recall reading much about carbon 14 in there"
ReplyDeleteOh sure, it's in there...same Book of Hezekiah, right after the verses about aluminum and power systems.
Getting off the carbon dating for a moment, lets look at some more fun evidence that the old earth timeline is wrong. How about verified soft tissue in dinosaur fossils?
ReplyDeletePardon the multiple links to the same site, but they discuss the relevant parts of the articles, and provide links to one or more reports in various scientific journals that that contain the article they are discussing
http://crev.info/2011/07/110726-dinosaur_protein_is_primordial/
http://crev.info/2011/05/original_soft_tissue_found_in_mosasaur_fossil/
http://crev.info/2011/03/more_soft_tissue_found_in_old_fossils/
http://crev.info/2011/01/dinosaur_bones_crack_open_surprises_original_tissue/
This whole issue was "broken" wide open when they had to break a bone to get it moved. Its something that simply isn't done. But in this case had to be, and they examined the bone and found soft tissue. It was reported in various journals, but obviously they suspected contamination. So they did it again, intentionally and with various people there to watch and ensure that all protections against contamination were followed. And again, they found soft tissue that was still soft.
As this is the case, it seriously calls into question the 65 million year dating of the bones.
DMM: "it seriously calls into question the 65 million year dating of the bones"
ReplyDeleteAssuming the conclusion of the maximum age of soft tissue is correct, yes it does.
But it also calls into question that maximum age....
I started re-reading a book I have last night called Thousands not Billions.
ReplyDeleteFirst part of the book asks why there is any carbon 14 found in coal and diamonds since both are supposed to be millions of years old. There is C14 in small amounts.
Giraffe: "First part of the book asks why there is any carbon 14 found in coal and diamonds since both are supposed to be millions of years old."
ReplyDeleteOne possible explanation, which I linked above, is contamination by radioactive decay of other elements in the surrounding rock:
The short version: the 14C in coal is probably produced de novo by radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium isotope series that is naturally found in rocks (and which is found in varying concentrations in different rocks, hence the variation in 14C content in different coals).
That C14 is not consistently found in the same amounts in all coal and diamonds -- indeed, it is not found in samples of coal from the same vein in which other samples do contain traces -- lends credence to this theory.
If all coal was formed from deposits laid at the time of the Flood*, then it would follow that all samples should contain similar amounts of C14, and that these amounts would be substantial rather than mere traces. And since the Flood only happened 4,000-5,000 years ago and the half-life of C14 is ~5,730 years, there should be just a little over 50% of the original amounts of C14 in all coal and diamond samples.
But there isn't.
* The amount of C14 remaining in all the coal would be just under 50% if it were formed at Creation, instead. But again, it isn't there.