The earth is only 6000 years old.

[Philipp]

This is incorrect. If the carbon is near to a radioactive mineral, say one containing Uranium, then neutrons emitted by the decaying Uranium can change Carbon atoms from normal to radioactive. This can result in the production of new radioactive Carbon many millions of years after all the original Carbon has decayed.

Sample contamination and the limits of accuracy of the measuring equipment can also be an issue.

rossum

You are dead wrong. The calcium carbonate fraction of dinosaur bone bio-apatite has NO nitrogen for changing into C-14; and, carbon 12 or 13 isotope atoms do not change into C-14 with mild neutron sources in the earth. That’s an old straw-man claim long ago refuted.

Yet the C-14 age for the bioapatite fraction of the Triceratops and Hadrosaur femur bones were concordant with the RC age for the bone collagen from each of the sawed bones. When labs obtain concordant ages for bones by the above double check method the age is assured to be valid. Plus ALL contamination was removed by the normal acid, alkali, acid pre-treatment method before submission to AMS or Beta C-14 equipment. The acid is to remove young or old carbonates and the alkali to remove bacteria or fungus etc. - like you do when you wash your clothes, you know, **“Tide-in, dirt-out.” **

A similar objection has been raised for C-14 in coal and diamond as analysis has shown that there is sometimes a small percentage of nitrogen: This objection has been refuted by other scientists because the radiation flux and cross section of nitrogen atoms would be too small for radiation from any uranium sources to effect the age. One would have to directly irradiate the collagen from perhaps a short distance in a MAN-MADE nuclear facility to change nitrogen into C-14 and give a false young age. Therefore my challenge to the Vatican still stands: Investigate the PAS for ignoring modern lab and field research in their attempt to keep their Sacred Cow alive.

 

[larkin31]

Wiki - the bastion of truth. It is best not to use this source.

for scientific information, it is actually very thorough and very well-documented.

Do you have a specific reason to doubt any of the summaries of radiometric dating techniques? Shall I quote some of them here for your comments?

 

[larkin31]

Roger Wiens article: Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective is also useful in this context.

rossum

from the introduction to this paper:

Dr. Wiens has a PhD in Physics, with a minor in Geology. His PhD thesis was on isotope ratios in meteorites, including surface exposure dating. He was employed at Caltech’s Division of Geological & Planetary Sciences at the time of writing the first edition. He is presently employed in the Space & Atmospheric Sciences Group at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

First edition 1994; revised version 2002.

Radiometric dating–the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements–has been in widespread use for over half a century. There are over forty such techniques, each using a different radioactive element or a different way of measuring them. It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which the Earth was created a very long time ago. Further evidence comes from the complete agreement between radiometric dates and other dating methods such as counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers. Many Christians have been led to distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent. Many are also unaware that Bible-believing Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating.

This paper describes in relatively simple terms how a number of the dating techniques work, how accurately the half-lives of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known, and how dates are checked with one another. In the process the paper refutes a number of misconceptions prevalent among Christians today. This paper is available on the web via the American Scientific Affiliation and related sites to promote greater understanding and wisdom on this issue, particularly within the Christian community.

from the middle:

**The Age of the Earth **

We now turn our attention to what the dating systems tell us about the age of the Earth. The most obvious constraint is the age of the oldest rocks. These have been dated at up to about four billion years. But actually only a very small portion of the Earth’s rocks are that old. From satellite data and other measurements we know that the Earth’s surface is constantly rearranging itself little by little as Earthquakes occur. Such rearranging cannot occur without some of the Earth’s surface disappearing under other parts of the Earth’s surface, re-melting some of the rock. So it appears that none of the rocks have survived from the creation of the Earth without undergoing remelting, metamorphism, or erosion, and all we can say–from this line of evidence–is that the Earth appears to be at least as old as the four billion year old rocks.

When scientists began systematically dating meteorites they learned a very interesting thing: nearly all of the meteorites had practically identical ages, at 4.56 billion years. These meteorites are chips off the asteroids. When the asteroids were formed in space, they cooled relatively quickly (some of them may never have gotten very warm), so all of their rocks were formed within a few million years. The asteroids’ rocks have not been remelted ever since, so the ages have generally not been disturbed. Meteorites that show evidence of being from the largest asteroids have slightly younger ages. The moon is larger than the largest asteroid. Most of the rocks we have from the moon do not exceed 4.1 billion years. The samples thought to be the oldest are highly pulverized and difficult to date, though there are a few dates extending all the way to 4.4 to 4.5 billion years. Most scientists think that all the bodies in the solar system were created at about the same time. Evidence from the uranium, thorium, and lead isotopes links the Earth’s age with that of the meteorites. This would make the Earth 4.5-4.6 billion years old.

there is more

you can look for yourself

 

[buffalo]

for scientific information, it is actually very thorough and very well-documented.

Do you have a specific reason to doubt any of the summaries of radiometric dating techniques? Shall I quote some of them here for your comments?

I disagree and will not endorse or refute any wiki links.

 

[grannymh]

Does it denigrate an ape’s mind to say it differs from that of a snail “in degree only”?

StAnastasia

Natural science uses degrees between animals which is proper. On the other hand, Catholicism teaches that because of its spiritual soul, human nature is different in kind from all others.

Blessings,
granny

These two websites contain TV ads about Catholicism. The first is from one of the Dioceses which is using them. The second is general information.

 

[grannymh]

Which design argument? Paley’s, Aristotle’s, Behe’s, Alfred E. Neuman’s, Aquinas’, St. Paul’s?

Alfred E. Neuman? Are you mad or something?

 

[larkin31]

I disagree and will not endorse or refute any wiki links.

I suspect this is because you can’t. If you suggest any further that the material is dubious, I will quote it here at length for you to show how the material is false. It’s the content that matters; not the author.

How about the material I posted just above here from the Christian author on radiometric dating and the age of the earth?

 

[Philipp]

And that would only happen if the rate of decay of carbon-14 would have remained constant over the years. They assume that it remained constant but they don’t know. So one more reason why C-14 isn’t accurate in determining the correct age.

C-14 decays at a rate of 5,730 +/- 30 years; yes we don’t know for sure if that is a constant anymore than other radiodecay methods. However, Dr. Libby the discoverer of the C-14 dating method for which he received the Nobel prize in physics knew back in the late 1940’s that the **rate of production of C-14 ** was not constant but was still increasing. He tried to say that it was experimental error to fit the long age of earth paradigm. That conclusion is that C-14 production may have just started up only thousands of years ago and was has not been in equilibrium. Therefore the “real” ages for fossil dinosaur bones, coal, fossil wood and diamond may be far younger than the C-14 ages reported in the technical literature. There are even more problems with the radiodecay methods that give millions and billions of years but that is another subject.

Dr. Libby also showed in 1964 that there was no possible way that collagen in bones could give a false C-14 age. Dr.Thomas Stafford’s data in 1990 using the most stringent and expensive purification methods for gettilng “absolute C-14 ages” for dating bone collagen showed C-14 dates within 5% of that obtained with the normal purification methods. Thus the C-14 ages for the dinosaur bones are validated.

Again I say **“date the fossils not the rocks.” ** to obtain as close to true ages as possible.

 

[grannymh]

What is “an honest, straightforward reading of the bible”? Whose reading? According to what hermeneutical principles?

The Catholic Church is the best for straightforward understanding of Divine Revelation contained in Holy Scripture.

Blessings,
granny

**“For this is the will of My Father, **
that everyone who looks upon the Son and believes in Him
shall have eternal life.” John 6:40

 

[Philipp]

for scientific information, it is actually very thorough and very well-documented.

Do you have a specific reason to doubt any of the summaries of radiometric dating techniques? Shall I quote some of them here for your comments?

Like Buffalo said and perhaps implied: Wiki on science is not the source to get accurate up-to-date research information. And yes, there are many scientific reasons why long age radiometric dating methods are NOT proof of millions an billions of years. Would you like to see the list?

 

[rossum]

The problem is in the condition of the atmosphere, not in the cosmic radiation that comes from stars. The question is: has the ratio of C-14 to C-12 ever changed from what it is today?

It is a faulty assumption to believe that the rate of C-14 formation has remained constant over the years, and I believe you know that.

It is a faulty assumption to assume that scientists have not measured the different rates of C-14 formation. Take a piece of carbon that can be independently dated. Measure its C-14 age. Set up a calibration table to correct the C-14 age to the actual age.

There are different examples of independently datable items. Wood from Pompeii, buried in 79 CE, has been dated. Annual tree rings from different species have been dated. Annual varves from Lake Suigetsu and Lake Baikal have been dated. Annual ice layers have been dated. Annual coral layers have been dated. We have a well calibrated C-14 dating method which shows good consistency between all of these different methods. For example:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Source: accuracyingenesis.com/varves.html

rossum

 

[rossum]

Yet the C-14 age for the bioapatite fraction of the Triceratops and Hadrosaur femur bones were concordant with the RC age for the bone collagen from each of the sawed bones.

Reference please.

rossum

 

[larkin31]

Like Buffalo said and perhaps implied: Wiki on science is not the source to get accurate up-to-date research information. And yes, there are many scientific reasons why long age radiometric dating methods are NOT proof of millions an billions of years. Would you like to see the list?

Start with just one, and an explanation. That is what this thread is about. So absolutely, go for it.

And why did you not answer the argument that I posted above, in two rather full paragraphs? Why not start there?

 

[edwest2]

Back to the OT. Isn’t obvious that if students are taught the wrong age of the earth that Chinese troops would land on the West coast the following day, unopposed? That Chinese bombers would follow, headed, unopposed, to the American heartland because antiaircraft and radar operators will no longer know how to work their equipment? That fighter pilots will stare at their planes in disbelief, doubting they could fly?

Or the more likely scenario would occur: the earth will explode but before the fragments get sucked into the sun, the last survivor will yell, “I blame all of this on the creationists!”

Peace,
Ed

“Comrade buffalo. Beware of those who do not follow the Party.”

 

[buffalo]

Back to the OT. Isn’t obvious that if students are taught the wrong age of the earth that Chinese troops would land on the West coast the following day, unopposed? That Chinese bombers would follow, headed, unopposed, to the American heartland because antiaircraft and radar operators will no longer know how to work their equipment? That fighter pilots will stare at their planes in disbelief, doubting they could fly?

Or the more likely scenario would occur: the earth will explode but before the fragments get sucked into the sun, the last survivor will yell, “I blame all of this on the creationists!”

Peace,
Ed

“Comrade buffalo. Beware of those who do not follow the Party.”

I have noticed that each day my disbelief increases (because of the continued story telling and implausibility) the lights in my house are dimming. My car does not go as far. My drugs are not working. My toilet even stopped flushing.

The pursuit of knowledge will stop and the human race will disappear unless we believe in evolution. Help me, Ed. How do we stop this?

 

[edwest2]

Buffalo -

In 2005, Time magazine ran a cover story titled The Evolution Wars. In the first page:

time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1090909,00.html

Someone is quoted as saying essentially that if anti-evolutionism continues, China will be happy. Yes, they can send their spies home, content in knowing that this disbelief will spread. School boards will fall like dominoes. People will turn to farming and the pickup truck will become the only means of transportation for families.

But, if we just all sign on the dotted line, America will prosper, but only if we believe the evidence*

*NOTICE: The signer of this document acknowledges and agrees that all scientific knowledge is provisional and subject to change. Heck, we might get new data about the age of the earth tomorrow, but we’ve still got your signature and that means this agreement stays in force in perpetuity and throughout the universe (which may include unknown dimensions at a future date).

So sign, buffalo. What are you waiting for? The future of this country hangs in the balance! Or worse!

God bless,
Ed

 

[larkin31]

you guys are making a mockery of this thread now.

 

[buffalo]

you guys are making a mockery of this thread now.

I have been on the receiving side for so long it was fun to poke back wee bit.

 

[edwest2]

you guys are making a mockery of this thread now.

What the majority of people do not want to admit on this thread is that Sunday Schools have been teaching the dreaded wrong age of the earth for centuries. Yet, somehow, even though infected with this grave error, these kids go on to do great things for this country.

How is that possible if they are missing this critical, supposedly life and death piece of information?

The seriousness of this falls away when one realizes that too many people in this country don’t even read, much less know what the age of the earth might be. That too many don’t even graduate high school. And for those who do make it to college, that too many need remedial education because they still don’t know much.

And this, this is the most important piece of information they need? There are people who believe Americans never landed on the moon (I’m not one of them), but that’s relatively OK, just as long as they still accept the right age of the earth?

God bless,
Ed

 

[larkin31]

What the majority of people do not want to admit on this thread is that Sunday Schools have been teaching the dreaded wrong age of the earth for centuries. Yet, somehow, even though infected with this grave error, these kids go on to do great things for this country…

This is no excuse for continuing to teach this untruth today. We DO know better, and most church organizations acknowledge an old earth. Regardless of their plurality (either way), Sunday School teachers don’t determine this fact, nor should they promote ignorance or a distrust of a growing scientific truth.

But I take it that you are now admitting that the earth is very likely approximately 4.5 billion years old. Some progress has been made in this regard, then.