The earth is only 6000 years old.

[hugh_miller]

Would you simply focus on this one for us. What is the evidence and data for this dating?

Here are the actual RC dates as found on the web site listed below the partial table.

Material Tested

Triceratops,MT
Triceratops,MT
Hadrosaur,MT
Hadrosaur,MT
Hadrosaur,MT
Hadrosaur,MT
Hadrosaur,MT
Hadrosaur,MT
Hadrosaur,AK
Allosaurus.CO
Allosaurus,CO
Acrocanthosaurus,TX
Acrocanthosaurus,TX

RadioCarbon age 30,890 +/-200
33,830 +2910/-1960
22,380 +/-800
22,990 +/-130
25,670 +/-220
25,170 +/-230
23,170 +/-170
2,560 +/-70
31,050 +230/-200
16,220 +/- 220
31,360 +/-100
23,760 +/-270
25,760 +/-280
The above was taken from www.dinosaurc14ages.com under carbon 14 dating topic.
Visit the above web site for details. The site is still under construction but is challenging academia to date the millions of dinosaur bones world-wide. Any takers on this thread? Some quick explanations:

(1) The youngest date of 2,560 +/- 70 RC years BP was the extracted contaminent from the alkali “pre-treatment” for the Hadrosaur from Montana. I worked part-time ifor three years in a small C-14 research lab as a chemist/sample preparer so I know a bit about C-14 dating. I will try and answer questions.

(2) The other RC dates were collagen or the Calcium carbonate fraction of bioapatite after purification pre-treatment or total organics as in the cases of the older date for the Triceratops and that for the Hadrosaur boe fragment from the North Slope of Alaska.

(3) Bio-apatite can be dated because carbonate replaces some of the phosphate portion of bones during the life time of the critter being tested for C-14. Therefore according to the labs, if concordant RC ages are obtained for both collagen the ages are valid. Concordant ages within 10 % were obtained.

(4) Also keep in mind that collagen proteins and soft pliable tissue should not last beyond 100,000 maximum.
**· **Protein identified in dinosaur fossils - osteocalcin could not …
Jeffrey L. Bada from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif. , says a study he did on Gla shows that it doesn’t last more than 100000 …
FindArticles.com | CBSi… - Similar

Hope this helps .

 

[StAnastasia]

Oh yes it does. Since Adam had infused knowledge it is an interesting question as to what if any cosmology God had shared with him. … We have to ferret out what Adam’s descendants who provided the material for Moses to compile understood. Do we have those drawings?

Adam is a theological mythical character, so his “infused knowledge” was also mythical.

 

[buffalo]

Adam is a theological mythical character, so his “infused knowledge” was also mythical.

That puts you outside the Church.

This is Church Dogma:

1. 
   *] The first man was created by God. (De fide.)
   *] The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)
   *] Man consists of two essential parts–a material body and a spiritual soul. (De fide.)
   *] The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body. (De fide.)
   *] Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De fide.)
   *] Every individual soul was immediately created out of nothing by God. (Sent. Certa.)
   *] A creature has the capacity to receive supernatural gifts. (Sent. communis.)
   *] The Supernatural presupposes Nature. (Sent communis.)
   *] God has conferred on man a supernatural Destiny. (De fide.)
   *] Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.)
   *] The donum rectitudinis or integritatis in the narrower sense, i.e., the freedom from irregular desire. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
   *] The donum immortalitatis, i.e.,bodily immortality. (De fide.)
   *] The donum impassibilitatis, i.e., the freedom from suffering. (Sent. communis.)
   *] The donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. (Sent. communis.)
   *] Adam received sanctifying grace not merely for himself, but for all his posterity. (Sent. certa.)
   *] Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De fide.)
   *] Through the sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De fide.)
   *] Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De fide.) D788.
   *] Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent. (De fide.)
   *] Original Sin consists in the deprivation of grace caused by the free act of sin committed by the head of the race. (Sent. communis.)
   *] Original sin is transmitted by natural generation. (De fide.)
   *] In the state of original sin man is deprived of sanctifying grace and all that this implies, as well as of the preternatural gifts of integrity. (De fide in regard to Sanctifying Grace and the Donum Immortalitatus. D788 et seq.)
   *] Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God. (De fide.)
   1. The Devil posesses a certain dominion over mankind by reason of Adam’s sin. (De fide.)

 

[StAnastasia]

That puts you outside the Church.)

Not at all. Dogma must be interpreted or else it becomes just plain nonsense. And Saint Augustine warns us against exposing the Catholic faith to ridicule by outsiders by insisting on nonsensical interpretations of scripture. Insisting on the descent of all humans from a single breeding pair is scientific nonsense.

 

[buffalo]

Not at all. Dogma must be interpreted or else it becomes just plain nonsense. And Saint Augustine warns us against exposing the Catholic faith to ridicule by outsiders by insisting on nonsensical interpretations of scripture. Insisting on the descent of all humans from a single breeding pair is scientific nonsense.

You have no authority to interpret Dogma to your own satisfaction.

You are welcome to show me Magisterial documents that show the Dogmas posted are in error. Please show me the dates this happened.

 

[hugh_miller]

Here are the actual RC dates as found on the web site listed below the partial table.

Material Tested

Triceratops,MT
Triceratops,MT
Hadrosaur,MT
Hadrosaur,MT
Hadrosaur,MT
Hadrosaur,MT
Hadrosaur,MT
Hadrosaur,MT
Hadrosaur,AK
Allosaurus.CO
Allosaurus,CO
Acrocanthosaurus,TX
Acrocanthosaurus,TX

RadioCarbon age 30,890 +/-200
33,830 +2910/-1960
22,380 +/-800
22,990 +/-130
25,670 +/-220
25,170 +/-230
23,170 +/-170
2,560 +/-70
31,050 +230/-200
16,220 +/- 220
31,360 +/-100
23,760 +/-270
25,760 +/-280
The above was taken from www.dinosaurc14ages.com under carbon 14 dating topic.
Visit the above web site for details. The site is still under construction but is challenging academia to date the millions of dinosaur bones world-wide. Any takers on this thread? Some quick explanations:

(1) The youngest date of 2,560 +/- 70 RC years BP was the extracted contaminent from the alkali “pre-treatment” for the Hadrosaur from Montana. I worked part-time ifor three years in a small C-14 research lab as a chemist/sample preparer so I know a bit about C-14 dating. I will try and answer questions.

(2) The other RC dates were collagen or the Calcium carbonate fraction of bioapatite after purification pre-treatment or total organics as in the cases of the older date for the Triceratops and that for the Hadrosaur boe fragment from the North Slope of Alaska.

(3) Bio-apatite can be dated because carbonate replaces some of the phosphate portion of bones during the life time of the critter being tested for C-14. Therefore according to the labs, if concordant RC ages are obtained for both collagen the ages are valid. Concordant ages within 10 % were obtained.

(4) Also keep in mind that collagen proteins and soft pliable tissue should not last beyond 100,000 maximum.
**· **Protein identified in dinosaur fossils - osteocalcin could not …
Jeffrey L. Bada from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif. , says a study he did on Gla shows that it doesn’t last more than 100000 …
FindArticles.com | CBSi… - Similar

Hope this helps .

CONTINUED:

When I posted the above the dates were parallel with each dinosaur so tested. Sorry about that.

The reasons that the team I worked with performed the C-14 dating on dinosaur bones was because of the controversial nature of the fossil human footprints found in the river that were imbedded in limestone Cretaceous rock that did NOT erode. These prints are still there but for one special on that was purposely “crow-barred” by someone who did not like the prints of humans with dinosaurs. However they could destroy the 100 PRISTINE human prints excavated with dinosaurian ones on the Cretaceous shelves above the river bottom. Eventually someone got the bright idea [no on our team] to use a cat-scan to test some prints for pressure marks and the prints have been confirmed in the last few years as valid thus supporting the RC dates for dinosaur bones from TX to AK. Now they need to tet for C-14 in the ones from China etc.

[This is U-Tube visual confirmation of famous “Delk” dinosaur and human footprints, one upon the other. Cat-scan of such fossil rock impressions from the Cretaceous rock strata (allegedly 108 M years BP but C-14 dated at 12,000-38,000 radiocarbon years) of the Glen Rose Texas limestone formations were confirmed as valid due to ability of C-scans to differentiate more dense material like bones from soft tissue or more dense mud that has been densified by foot pressure points before turning quickly to stone. There are also 100 or so “pristine human footprints” with 300 or so fossil dinosaur footprints exposed by dozens of excavations along the McFall ledges of the Paluxy River with 100’s of witnesses since 1982 which are discussed in several books and on www.creationevidence.org ]

 

[edwest2]

What I find strange is the idea that God created the rocks with fossils in them. It would seem that God were whimsical in his decisions. It’s also very curious, considering modern physics, to look out into the universe and see galaxies whose light is estimated to have taken 13 billion years to get to us. Why is it necessary to believe that 6,000-10,000 years is our limit?

Do you understand the method used to get distance measurements? It’s called redshift. The light coming in is analyzed and the more it is shifted toward the red end of the spectrum, the farther away it is assumed to be. There is a problem however. According to the scientific literature, some distant objects are moving away from us at greater than the speed of light. This is called superluminal in the literature.

What is strange about God? Can’t He do things God can do? In the meantime, scientists have discovered ancient fossils with some DNA and they are confused. DNA is fragile and falls apart in a relatively short period of time. Certainly less than a million years. So yes, there are fossils but they may be younger than scientists once thought.

God bless,
Ed

 

[rossum]

Saber tooth tiger from La Brea tar pits in LA: 12,000 - 28,000 RC years BP

I have asked this question before. Here you have a date of 12,000 to 28,000 years before the present, a perfectly reasonable date for the La Brea tar pits. How do you use this date to show that the Earth is only 6,000 years old? You want us to believe a date from the tar pits at a time when the tar pits were at least 6,000 years in the future and the entire planet did not yet exist? You are not making sense to me on this.

If the date you give here is correct then the 6,000 year YEC date must be wrong. If the date you give is incorrect then we can deduce nothing from it – it is spurious data.

I’ve heard on one AMS machine but no reference yet that obtailned 100,000 RC years BP

Is this relevant? The diamonds were baselining the Keck AMS machine, about 30,000 ybp. Those results have nothing to do with whatever the baseline may be for a different AMS machine. You need to find that reference.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

I have asked this question before. Here you have a date of 12,000 to 28,000 years before the present, a perfectly reasonable date for the La Brea tar pits. How do you use this date to show that the Earth is only 6,000 years old? You want us to believe a date from the tar pits at a time when the tar pits were at least 6,000 years in the future and the entire planet did not yet exist? You are not making sense to me on this.

If the date you give here is correct then the 6,000 year YEC date must be wrong. If the date you give is incorrect then we can deduce nothing from it – it is spurious data.

Is this relevant? The diamonds were baselining the Keck AMS machine, about 30,000 ybp. Those results have nothing to do with whatever the baseline may be for a different AMS machine. You need to find that reference.

rossum

Just a question - what young earthers specifically state 6000 years?

Can an young earther advance a position that is one of young ages without specifically claiming 6000 years? In other words thousands of years vs billions?

 

[Philipp]

I have asked this question before. Here you have a date of 12,000 to 28,000 years before the present, a perfectly reasonable date for the La Brea tar pits. How do you use this date to show that the Earth is only 6,000 years old? You want us to believe a date from the tar pits at a time when the tar pits were at least 6,000 years in the future and the entire planet did not yet exist? You are not making sense to me on this.

If the date you give here is correct then the 6,000 year YEC date must be wrong. If the date you give is incorrect then we can deduce nothing from it – it is spurious data.

Is this relevant? The diamonds were baselining the Keck AMS machine, about 30,000 ybp. Those results have nothing to do with whatever the baseline may be for a different AMS machine. You need to find that reference.

rossum

I like your quote about truth. There is no ultimate truth I think it said.

I’m not arguing for a 6000 years since creation — just that those millions and billions of lyears do NOT exist. I’m arguing that science of the past is being challenged by the science of today. Another prime example can be found RE the formation of mudstone which is 2/3’sd of the geologic colulmn.

go to dinosaurc14ages.com/mudstones.htm with the title of this topic being, SEDIMENTATION OF MUDSTONE
SCIENTISTS WRONG FOR 2 CENTURIES.

DESCENT FROM A COMMON ANCESTOR DOES NOT MAKE SENSE BUT C-14 datilng of dinosaurs does. Diamond dating does too as I’ve pointed out earlier but no tilme to keep repeating to satisfy some people on this thread.

 

[rossum]

When I posted the above the dates were parallel with each dinosaur so tested. Sorry about that.

                        Radiocarbon age
Triceratops,MT          30,890 +/-200
Triceratops,MT          33,830 +2910/-1960

Hadrosaur,MT            22,380 +/-800
Hadrosaur,MT            22,990 +/-130
Hadrosaur,MT            25,670 +/-220
Hadrosaur,MT            25,170 +/-230
Hadrosaur,MT            23,170 +/-170
Hadrosaur,MT            2,560 +/-70 
Hadrosaur,AK            31,050 +230/-200 

Allosaurus,CO           16,220 +/- 220
Allosaurus,CO           31,360 +/-100

Acrocanthosaurus,TX     23,760 +/-270 
Acrocanthosaurus,TX     25,760 +/-280

If I stand on my kitchen scales it registers 10 Kg. My actual weight is closer to 75 Kg . The 10 Kg figure is the limit to which the scales can measure, not my actual weight. Since 30,000 bp is close to the limit of many C-14 dating labs I am suspicious of these figures. Do you have alternative sources of dates for these samples? If the Carbon dates matched the Argon-Argon dates then you would have a much stronger case.

I am also interested in how you use a date of 30,000 bp to argue for a YEC timescale which can only allow dates up to 6,000 bp.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

For those who think Medieval Christians thought the earth was flat:

jameshannam.com/flatearth.htm

Hope this helps,
Ed

 

[rossum]

Just a question - what young earthers specifically state 6000 years?

I took the 6,000 year figure from the thread title. This is consistent with the Answers in Genesis Statement of Faith which says:4.1 Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation, spanning approximately 4,000 years from creation to Christ.

Can an young earther advance a position that is one of young ages without specifically claiming 6000 years? In other words thousands of years vs billions?

Yes. I have seen other figures up to 12,000 years. The 6,000 year figure is usually closely derived from Genesis, as with Archbishop Ussher’s dates. The 12,000 year figure relies less closely on Genesis, assuming a certain amount of leeway in the genealogies.

I have never seen a young earther advance a figure as high as 30,000 years, as with Hugh’s dates for dinosaur fossils or Philipp’s 100,000 years for one AMS machine.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

I took the 6,000 year figure from the thread title. This is consistent with the Answers in Genesis Statement of Faith which says:4.1 Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation, spanning approximately 4,000 years from creation to Christ.
Yes. I have seen other figures up to 12,000 years. The 6,000 year figure is usually closely derived from Genesis, as with Archbishop Ussher’s dates. The 12,000 year figure relies less closely on Genesis, assuming a certain amount of leeway in the genealogies.

I have never seen a young earther advance a figure as high as 30,000 years, as with Hugh’s dates for dinosaur fossils or Philipp’s 100,000 years for one AMS machine.

rossum

I do not argue for 6000 years - this explains why. Interpreting the Genealogies of Genesis

Challenged with the idea that Adam’s date is 4004 BC and that the Flood occurred in 2238 BC, Robert Sungenis shows that, according to biblical chronology and archeological findings, these dates would be impossible, for it would leave only 66 years between Noah and Abraham. Read as Robert shows that the genealogies are actually a biblical calendar that takes us back to about the year 10,000 BC, with the Flood occurring around 5,000 BC.

 

[edwest2]

                        Radiocarbon age
Triceratops,MT          30,890 +/-200
Triceratops,MT          33,830 +2910/-1960

Hadrosaur,MT            22,380 +/-800
Hadrosaur,MT            22,990 +/-130
Hadrosaur,MT            25,670 +/-220
Hadrosaur,MT            25,170 +/-230
Hadrosaur,MT            23,170 +/-170
Hadrosaur,MT            2,560 +/-70 
Hadrosaur,AK            31,050 +230/-200 

Allosaurus,CO           16,220 +/- 220
Allosaurus,CO           31,360 +/-100

Acrocanthosaurus,TX     23,760 +/-270 
Acrocanthosaurus,TX     25,760 +/-280

If I stand on my kitchen scales it registers 10 Kg. My actual weight is closer to 75 Kg . The 10 Kg figure is the limit to which the scales can measure, not my actual weight. Since 30,000 bp is close to the limit of many C-14 dating labs I am suspicious of these figures. Do you have alternative sources of dates for these samples? If the Carbon dates matched the Argon-Argon dates then you would have a much stronger case.

I am also interested in how you use a date of 30,000 bp to argue for a YEC timescale which can only allow dates up to 6,000 bp.

rossum

Hello rossum,

Unfortunately, what we are dealing with here consists of two things:

(A) A clash of orthodoxies.

(B) A failure to recognize what the Church teaches.

With A, there is a false clash between two Orthodox groups. Young Earth Creationists are dogmatically defined as those believing in a 6000 year old earth with some allowance for a 10,000 year time frame. However, anyone who does not believe in billions of years for the age of the earth gets thrown into the YEC camp as well.

B involves clear Church teaching that allows for thousands of years, but according to Cardinal Schoenborn, certainly not 6000. Again, due to what I call secular dogmatism, any date below billions is regarded as impossible, wrong and likely to get one branded as a YEC.

And politics plays a role as well. It involves demythologizing and mythologizing parts of the Bible. It would serve the current secular and anti-theist bent of current media thinking that Adam become only a myth. A reference point for the human. That way, a purely mechanistic science overrules Scripture and denies to God a truly causal role in the development of life. God becomes that superfluous thing that secularists want Him to be. He becomes a non-issue and Christianity, especially Catholicism, can be reduced to a series of private rituals that have no real bearing on day to day life, much less politics and contributing its voice to running the country.

That is the primary concern with science a distant second.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Mr_Skeptic]

Here’s a video reply to the Paluxy hoax.

youtube.com/watch?v=yJPZ-nRH8r8&feature=response_watch

 

[ricmat]

Not at all. Dogma must be interpreted or else it becomes just plain nonsense. …insisting on the descent of all humans from a single breeding pair is scientific nonsense.

You have no authority to interpret Dogma to your own satisfaction.

Well, that’s StAnastasia for you. A legend in her own mind.

 

[buffalo]

Well, that’s StAnastasia for you. A legend in her own mind.

a real “force for heterodoxy”

 

[StAnastasia]

You have no authority to interpret Dogma to your own satisfaction.
You are welcome to show me Magisterial documents that show the Dogmas posted are in error. Please show me the dates this happened.

Buffalo, you don’t get out much, do you? The geneticists with whom I work look at claims such as you parrot back from the catechism and just laugh. Why should they take seriously a silly religion that flushes their entire science down the toilet?

It’s sad and its unnecessary. The bishops and priests with whom I’ve worked on issues in science and religion just shake their heads in disbelief when I tell them the things I hear from “creationists” such as yourself. I had a nice visit with Archbishop Jozef Zycinski of Poland at the evolution conference last year, and he asked me (and others present) to explain just how creationism has gotten such a hold in America. We explained that it had to do with the peculiar ecclesiastical history of this country.

 

[larkin31]

Here are the actual RC dates as found on the web site listed below the partial table.

Material Tested

Triceratops,MT
Triceratops,MT
Hadrosaur,MT
Hadrosaur,MT
Hadrosaur,MT
Hadrosaur,MT
Hadrosaur,MT
Hadrosaur,MT
Hadrosaur,AK
Allosaurus.CO
Allosaurus,CO
Acrocanthosaurus,TX
Acrocanthosaurus,TX

RadioCarbon age 30,890 +/-200
33,830 +2910/-1960
22,380 +/-800
22,990 +/-130
25,670 +/-220
25,170 +/-230
23,170 +/-170
2,560 +/-70
31,050 +230/-200
16,220 +/- 220
31,360 +/-100
23,760 +/-270
25,760 +/-280
The above was taken from www.dinosaurc14ages.com under carbon 14 dating topic.
Visit the above web site for details. The site is still under construction but is challenging academia to date the millions of dinosaur bones world-wide. Any takers on this thread? Some quick explanations:

(1) The youngest date of 2,560 +/- 70 RC years BP was the extracted contaminent from the alkali “pre-treatment” for the Hadrosaur from Montana. I worked part-time ifor three years in a small C-14 research lab as a chemist/sample preparer so I know a bit about C-14 dating. I will try and answer questions.

(2) The other RC dates were collagen or the Calcium carbonate fraction of bioapatite after purification pre-treatment or total organics as in the cases of the older date for the Triceratops and that for the Hadrosaur boe fragment from the North Slope of Alaska.

(3) Bio-apatite can be dated because carbonate replaces some of the phosphate portion of bones during the life time of the critter being tested for C-14. Therefore according to the labs, if concordant RC ages are obtained for both collagen the ages are valid. Concordant ages within 10 % were obtained.

(4) Also keep in mind that collagen proteins and soft pliable tissue should not last beyond 100,000 maximum.
**· **Protein identified in dinosaur fossils - osteocalcin could not …
Jeffrey L. Bada from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif. , says a study he did on Gla shows that it doesn’t last more than 100000 …
FindArticles.com | CBSi… - Similar

Hope this helps .

You seem to be doing only C-14 work. Why is this? Most finds are dated using a triangulation (so to speak) of various dating methods available to paleontologists.

Do you deny the existence of, say, the age evidence of meteorites? Of moon rock? Do you deny the existence of a “Jurassic” period?