getting dates about a young earth

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Dan_473

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
#1
I've been looking at some young-earth creationist websites, and noticed that a lot of time is spent showing that the conventional dates for rocks and stuff is wrong, that the earth is much younger.

but the dates talked about don't always support a 6,000 year old earth.

from Library: Radio-Carbon Dating Proves a Young Earth
"For example, a rock aged by two different scientists using the most advanced radiometric technique was reported to be 10,000 years old by one scientist. The other scientist aged the same rock at several billion years."

is the 10,000 reliable?

what dates are arrived at with proper carbon-dating etc?
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#2
I've been looking at some young-earth creationist websites, and noticed that a lot of time is spent showing that the conventional dates for rocks and stuff is wrong, that the earth is much younger.

but the dates talked about don't always support a 6,000 year old earth.

from Library: Radio-Carbon Dating Proves a Young Earth
"For example, a rock aged by two different scientists using the most advanced radiometric technique was reported to be 10,000 years old by one scientist. The other scientist aged the same rock at several billion years."

is the 10,000 reliable?

what dates are arrived at with proper carbon-dating etc?
Carbon dating assumes the decay of these isotopes has been the same since the beginning of time.. That is how it bases its standard test. for we know that these isotopes decay at this rate, that can be measured.

If the rate of decay in the past was not the same. then carbon dating can not be trusted.


All attempts to try to date material assumes things occur today the same way they did in the beginning.. That is not the case. In fact Peter warns against thinking this way, and how in the last days men would use this..
 
Nov 22, 2015
20,436
1,430
0
#3
Interesting..perhaps both are going into the carbon dating with a pre-conceived idea and so they look for that. ...or maybe carbon-dating is not really a reliable science yet?

I have heard where they did carbon=dating on bones in a dig. The bones were older then the dirt around it when they did the testing. It all sounds kinda hokey to me...but I don't study it either.
 

Dan_473

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
#4
All attempts to try to date material assumes things occur today the same way they did in the beginning.. That is not the case.
I can see that as a possibility.

then going with that idea, "science" couldn't be used to support young earth ideas. or undermine old earth ideas.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#5
I can see that as a possibility.

then going with that idea, "science" couldn't be used to support young earth ideas. or undermine old earth ideas.

using carbon dating? Yes, I would say you are correct.
 

Dan_473

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
#6
Interesting..perhaps both are going into the carbon dating with a pre-conceived idea and so they look for that. ...or maybe carbon-dating is not really a reliable science yet?

I have heard where they did carbon=dating on bones in a dig. The bones were older then the dirt around it when they did the testing. It all sounds kinda hokey to me...but I don't study it either.
yes, and I'm not thinking just about carbon dating. maybe it means that science about the distant past is useless.
 

phil36

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2009
8,260
2,111
113
51
#8
There are Christian scientists on both sides of the fence... one thing we do need to consider is that all truth is God's truth, but not all truth is in scripture. I think Christianity and science are compatible and not polar opposites. Many Christians and secularists try and keep the two seperate.

I content myself with... In the beginning..God!
 
Nov 22, 2015
20,436
1,430
0
#9
There is probably "stuff" out there knowledge wise that we don't know yet...but the Lord does!

yes, and I'm not thinking just about carbon dating. maybe it means that science about the distant past is useless.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#10
anything besides carbon dating that can be used?

anything else can be used, if it is trustworthy. Why use an untrustworthy or unreliable scientific experiment to determine so called scientific truth.
 

Marcelo

Senior Member
Feb 4, 2016
2,359
859
113
72
#11
Since I believe in the Big Bang theory I also believe that the Earth is billions of years old. Some 20 years ago I believed in a young Earth, but later on I changed my mind. My faith in Christ, however, remains the same. The Bible is a collection of spiritual books - not a scientific encyclopedia.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
24,555
13,320
113
#12
A little more on carbon-dating (and dating using other radio-isotopes)... it is an unreliable way to measure age for the reasons above, and that objects which have a known age (such as a recently-dead animal or volcanic rock from a recent eruption) give isotope dates which are known to be incorrect, even wildly incorrect. Also, tissues from different parts of the same animal have been dated differently by thousands of years. Anything which starts with significant assumptions is at best on the edges of genuine scientific investigation. Assertions based on assumptions are not scientific.

While there is possibly some reason to dating using isotopes, I don't think the science is well-enough established to be used as a 'proof' for an old earth, or for a young earth for that matter. There are stories (which I cannot document) of researchers tossing dates which don't agree with their preconceived ideas. Listen to some of the young-earth videos on YouTube and you will likely hear these stories.

Are there "scientific" discoveries which cast doubt on that verse? Yes, but I haven't come across any that don't start with an assumption of an old earth, or with other unprovable factors.

God says in Exodus 20:11 that He "made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them" in six days. The context clearly indicates six literal days rather than any kind of figurative days. I see no reason to doubt Him. Those who assert that His Word is incorrect in this regard must either toss the inerrancy and reliability of Scripture, or relegate it to just-so stories. I prefer to regard it as truth.
 
B

BeyondET

Guest
#13
Interesting..perhaps both are going into the carbon dating with a pre-conceived idea and so they look for that. ...or maybe carbon-dating is not really a reliable science yet?

I have heard where they did carbon=dating on bones in a dig. The bones were older then the dirt around it when they did the testing. It all sounds kinda hokey to me...but I don't study it either.
[video=youtube;iZinb6rVozc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZinb6rVozc[/video]
 
4

49

Guest
#15
Interesting..perhaps both are going into the carbon dating with a pre-conceived idea and so they look for that. ...or maybe carbon-dating is not really a reliable science yet?

I have heard where they did carbon=dating on bones in a dig. The bones were older then the dirt around it when they did the testing. It all sounds kinda hokey to me...but I don't study it either.
Gives new meaning to "older than dirt" maybe?
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
11,780
2,937
113
#16
There is one more thing to think about. Did God create the earth like it was totally new, or did he create things with form and substance, like mountains, oceans, rivers, etc. In other words, on Day 1, did the earth like it was new, or were there a lot of geomorphic features that could have been from any age or time, including today?

Because there is no reason God should not have created a hospitable place, with land and water structures that are similar to the present. If that is true, on Day 1, it could have looked like the earth was billions of years old, even though it wasn't. Or, it could have looked brand new. The fact is most land forms are created quickly, despite what evolutionary geologists have been trying to tell us.

Surtsey, a volcanic island near Iceland erupted in 1963, and kept erupting till 1967. Despite the claims of evolutionists, this island is now rapidly disappearing, and should be below sea level by the turn of the century. Another interesting item, is within months of the eruption, the rocks on the beach were rounded pebbles. Long earth evolutionists insist that it takes centuries for this kind of mass wasting to happen to rocks, but the actual evidence is that the entire geological processes of this island are more rapid than any models could have predicted.

So how old was Surtsey when it was 10 or 20 years old? It looked like millions of years, but the fact is, the evolutionary model was simply wrong.

Surtsey and the birth of new islands | Earth | EarthSky
 
T

Tintin

Guest
#17
I've been looking at some young-earth creationist websites, and noticed that a lot of time is spent showing that the conventional dates for rocks and stuff is wrong, that the earth is much younger.

but the dates talked about don't always support a 6,000 year old earth.

from Library: Radio-Carbon Dating Proves a Young Earth
"For example, a rock aged by two different scientists using the most advanced radiometric technique was reported to be 10,000 years old by one scientist. The other scientist aged the same rock at several billion years."

is the 10,000 reliable?

what dates are arrived at with proper carbon-dating etc?
Yes, the 10,000 years date isn't viable from a biblical creation perspective, but it shows that the dating methods used can't be trusted. By the way, the 10,000 years is on the secular timescale, not the biblical creation timescale.
 
T

Tintin

Guest
#18
Since I believe in the Big Bang theory I also believe that the Earth is billions of years old. Some 20 years ago I believed in a young Earth, but later on I changed my mind. My faith in Christ, however, remains the same. The Bible is a collection of spiritual books - not a scientific encyclopedia.
A collection of spiritual books? You do realise they're largely focused on earth in light of Eternity, don't you? The Bible is a history book.
 
D

Depleted

Guest
#19
I've been looking at some young-earth creationist websites, and noticed that a lot of time is spent showing that the conventional dates for rocks and stuff is wrong, that the earth is much younger.

but the dates talked about don't always support a 6,000 year old earth.

from Library: Radio-Carbon Dating Proves a Young Earth
"For example, a rock aged by two different scientists using the most advanced radiometric technique was reported to be 10,000 years old by one scientist. The other scientist aged the same rock at several billion years."

is the 10,000 reliable?

what dates are arrived at with proper carbon-dating etc?
I'm reading an article about how they're discovering more about the site known as Stonehenge. The guy who invented carbon dating dated it to 1600 BC in 1952. Modern daters claim it's over a thousand years older. Is there truly a "proper carbon dating?"
 
T

Tintin

Guest
#20
I'm reading an article about how they're discovering more about the site known as Stonehenge. The guy who invented carbon dating dated it to 1600 BC in 1952. Modern daters claim it's over a thousand years older. Is there truly a "proper carbon dating?"
I'm more inclined to believe that this isn't true, that the Stonehenge is a post-Flood structure.