Paradise Café Discussions A Place For Bible Research And Christian Encouragement

Hi all

I just read an interesting article about carbon dating and how it can actually support the biblical view of a young earth. Wondered what some of the more scientific minded think of the essay? Obviously the majority of scientists don't agree.

Article here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...-the-bible

deedee xxx

deedee Wrote:

I just read an interesting article about carbon dating and how it can actually support the biblical view of a young earth. Wondered what some of the more scientific minded think of the essay? Obviously the majority of scientists don't agree.

Hi deedee!!! Big Grin

It just goes to show that we have to be really careful about those darned assumptions. Like assuming the earth is billions of years old, or assuming that the flood never happened. As far as the majority of scientists, if they did agree they would be blackballed out of business.

Good find! Thumbup

Heartbeat
Lou

Thanks Jesh, 'course the scientists will go out of their way to prove this wrong but what do they know anyway lol! Bangin

deedee xxx

Hi DD

Here's an example of some recent carbon dating...

World's oldest tree discovered in Sweden

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jh...ree117.xml

a quote: "The oldest tree, in Fulu Mountain, Dalarna (“the dales”), was dated by carbon dating at a laboratory in Miami, Florida to 9,550 years old and underneath the crown in the soil there were another three generations of wood from the same clone, dating 375, 5,660 and 9,000 years old that have the same genetic makeup."

The "Climatological facts" are interesting.

a quote: "There is no direct connection between CO2 emission and climate warming."

Christan love,

gogh

Hi deedee

One of the problems of dating in general is that geologists rely on the Principle of Uniformitarianism:

"The principle of uniformitarianism states that the geologic processes observed in operation that modify the Earth's crust at present have worked in much the same way over geologic time. A fundamental principle of geology advanced by the 18th century Scottish physician and geologist James Hutton, is that "the present is the key to the past." In Hutton's words: "the past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology

Carbon 14 has a "half life" of about 5,700 years... which means that half the radiocarbon in Carbon 14 decays about every 5,700 years.

So if something they find has 1/4 of the "expected" level of Carbon 14, then it is deduced to have gone through two "half lives", and is therefore about 11,000 - 12,000 years old.

Obviously this method has several assumptions. For instance, it assumes we know how much Carbon 14 it should have had in the first place.

Many creationists (myself included) believe that there was more carbon and oxygen present in the pre-Flood atmosphere. This is not taken into account by geologists - they just assume that "the present is the key to the past" and that the amount of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere today is the same as 10,000 or 50,000 or 500,000 years ago.

That is the problem with carbon dating pre-Flood items. If the carbon level was different in the pre-Flood environment, then we cannot use today's carbon level to measure age.

Incidentally, there are a few reasons why creationists believe there was a big difference in the pre-Flood environment. First, there was probably much much more vegetation and trees. Second, things were probably much bigger. (Some creatures literally don't stop growing until they die, and some animals that have been found are huge!)

Quote:

Incidentally, there are a few reasons why creationists believe there was a big difference in the pre-Flood environment. First, there was probably much much more vegetation and trees. Second, things were probably much bigger. (Some creatures literally don't stop growing until they die, and some animals that have been found are huge!)

I agree with this it seems perfectly logical - and thank you for describing the process in more laymans terms, science was never one of my strengths Big Grin

Deedee xxx

Hi brother Gogh,
It is good to see you too my brother.

I guess you realize the reason for the different ages of the tree clones? However, for the benefit of those who may think this a flaw in C14 dating...

Typically a tree like this would have its low branches weighed down to earth by winter snows during its lifetime. At times the tips of these branches take root, eventually becoming disconnected growing seperately from the mother tree. They are therefore clones of the original tree but lay down more recent C14... hence the age difference.

atb
Derek

gogh Wrote:

Hi DD

Here's an example of some recent carbon dating...

World's oldest tree discovered in Sweden

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jh...ree117.xml

a quote: "The oldest tree, in Fulu Mountain, Dalarna (“the dales”), was dated by carbon dating at a laboratory in Miami, Florida to 9,550 years old and underneath the crown in the soil there were another three generations of wood from the same clone, dating 375, 5,660 and 9,000 years old that have the same genetic makeup."

The "Climatological facts" are interesting.

a quote: "There is no direct connection between CO2 emission and climate warming."

Christan love,

gogh

Dear brother gogh,

You wrote:

The "Climatological facts" are interesting.

a quote: "There is no direct connection between CO2 emission and climate warming."

Hey, don't start on that one!!! Smile

Just being controversial...as usual....grin!

...

http://shelter.jwreform.org/viewtopic.php?t=194

gogh Wrote:

Just being controversial...as usual....grin!

...

I should have said don't start me on that one! Smile

Dendrochronology/C14 and ice core data would tend to confirm the Earth is 'Old', rather than 'Young'! re: 6,000 or 10,000 years 'young'.

Perhaps hatching Mayfly think this is the first Spring of the world!?

Derek

Hi guys,

Derek, I’m very pleased to see you here! Welcome, even though I’m hardly here a wet day myself! I realise this subject really belongs to yourself and Interpretum and perhaps other folk that I’m not familiar with on the PC. But I’m sick of knowing nothing about it so I read the web page.

On the Answers In Genesis web page, the writer says that the Bible teaches a young universe and a young earth. I guess it is this view that Young Earth Creationists support?

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

Am I correct in thinking that after this point, we get into the ordering of the universe and populating the earth with life? Would it be fair then to say that the Bible does not teach a young universe and earth, not giving us any information about age at all, but scientific tools are being used to measure time on the earth, and the results are being applied to the universe by extension?

I understand the position that the creative days in Genesis appear to be 24-hour days, because of the use of evening and morning in the context. If they were epochs or eras, the ‘start’ and the ‘finish’ might be more likely ways to describe the beginning and end of the periods than ‘evening’ and morning’.

Then carbon14 dating is called into question. According to the web site, radiocarbon has decayed completely by 100, 000 years, so that’s the maximum time for elements created since the earth was placed in its universe. If carbon14 expectations are over-estimated, the decay is similarly over-estimated, and this results in exaggerated time since the element died.

This is my first foray into this subject, so I hope you’ll be patient with my summary of the web page.

I realise that you guys have discussed the basics ad nauseum, so you hardly want to go at it again. I’ll find the old threads and see how my newfound information lends itself to the subject.

Brendan.

Hi Brendan,
Fire away, I do not mind in the slightest.

brendan Wrote:

Hi guys,

Derek, I’m very pleased to see you here! Welcome, even though I’m hardly here a wet day myself! I realise this subject really belongs to yourself and Interpretum and perhaps other folk that I’m not familiar with on the PC. But I’m sick of knowing nothing about it so I read the web page.

On the Answers In Genesis web page, the writer says that the Bible teaches a young universe and a young earth. I guess it is this view that Young Earth Creationists support?

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

Am I correct in thinking that after this point, we get into the ordering of the universe and populating the earth with life? Would it be fair then to say that the Bible does not teach a young universe and earth, not giving us any information about age at all, but scientific tools are being used to measure time on the earth, and the results are being applied to the universe by extension?

Yes, the universe could be old since the beginning predates the 'days'

I understand the position that the creative days in Genesis appear to be 24-hour days, because of the use of evening and morning in the context. If they were epochs or eras, the ‘start’ and the ‘finish’ might be more likely ways to describe the beginning and end of the periods than ‘evening’ and morning’.

They do 'appear' to be days but appearances can be deceiving... When the Bible talks about the trees of the field clapping their hands...Do the trees have hands to clap?
We can get bogged down by the words, it is progression and preparation, and populating of the Earth with life by the Creator that is the important point made in the poetry of Genesis.

Unless we can harmonize the facts with the theology we have dissonance. Young Earth Creationism is an attempt to find facts that harmonize with a dogmatic literal understanding of Genesis.

Any understanding we gain, necessarily is provisional, anyone who dogmatically thinks otherwise is not in awe of the Infinite.

Then carbon14 dating is called into question. According to the web site, radiocarbon has decayed completely by 100, 000 years, so that’s the maximum time for elements created since the earth was placed in its universe. If carbon14 expectations are over-estimated, the decay is similarly over-estimated, and this results in exaggerated time since the element died.

Yes, C14 in no way stretches back far enough to map the age of the Earth, other means are used to assess age and these different method have been found to correlate. However C14 dates stretch back further than YEC's chronology of life's beginning.

This is my first foray into this subject, so I hope you’ll be patient with my summary of the web page.

I realise that you guys have discussed the basics ad nauseum, so you hardly want to go at it again. I’ll find the old threads and see how my newfound information lends itself to the subject.

Brendan.

WCL
Derek
Ps. tried to get you tonight will try on the morrow.

Hi Derek,

I always manage to make Skype seem complicated. I will adjust the settings for the Skype phone early tomorrow and leave them alone until you call. If I hear nothing by about 7.30, I'll try to get you.

Regards,
Brendan.

Hi Brendan and all,
Very few Christians seem comfortable talking about 'old earth creationism', it seems those most vocal on the net are those who present the Earth as young.

Others seem happy talking about astronomy and the age of the Universe being say, 13.8 billion years old? But there is a distinct paucity of discussion about the Earth itself.

The Earth is a living world, and I submit it has been so for perhaps a few thousand million years. It not just rock in space with life on it, the life on our world's land masses and in its oceans has kept the life gasses in the atmosphere and its temperature relatively constant over time.
Even though the output of our sun has gone up, some say 25% over time, this equilibrium has been maintained by the life on the planet reducing our greenhouse gasses. If oceanic life had not pumped down the CO2 in the atmosphere our distance from the sun, in the Goldilocks zone, would not have saved us from a thermal runaway effect similar to Venus.

This is why I see Young Earth Creation as simplistic and mistaken. They fail to appreciate the intricacy and brilliant design of our planet by the creator God.
atb
Derek