getting dates about a young earth

[valiant]

according to the genealogies take literally Abraham was born 292 years after the Flood. Shem was alive and had 210 years longer to live (he outlived Abraham). Thus the Flood occurred no earlier than 2300 BC.

where is the evidence for such a Flood. It must have left huge traces if it happened,

 

[Dan_473]

I meant to say it proves the unreliability of the popular dating methods....

ok, give me a while to find all the information again.

thanks for the info in the PM. I went to the article at

https://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=7

my impressions were

the changes in alpha indicated that things we consider constants may not be (going with "things were different back then)

and

taking the change in alpha into account would mean the universe was much younger than billions of years, though I don't think they showed it lead to a 6,000 year dating.

 

[Dan_473]

You hit it on the nail with that. Can't completely rely on the carbon dating process, it's only an assumption tool.

What can we rely on then? God's Word as written, and God's Word shows that this earth is very ancient.

The 6,000 year old idea actually came from an assumption too. In bishop Ussher's 17th century work History of The World, the time of the man Adam in God's Garden is as far back as he could go to using God's Word from the time of Christ to Adam per all the begats and such. He dated the time of the man Adam in God's Garden as 4004 B.C. Problem with that is that's not proof of how old the earth is; it's proof of how far back it was when God formed the man Adam in His Garden.

Then others took that 4004 B.C. date from Ussher's book, and based on modern times added roughly 2,000 years to it and presto, saying the earth is only 6,000 years old.

good point... the earth is created "in the beginning"

maybe to be more precise, the question is about dating the "dry land" or the age of the sun... a literal reading would make them a few days older than adam.

 

[Word_Swordsman]

skimming an article at irc.org, Earth's Young Magnetic Field | The Institute for Creation Research

I found this

"Since the early 1970s it has been widely known and published that the earth’s magnetic field is decaying exponentially."

but I couldn't find a place in the article where the writer says what date the magnetic field yields for the earth.

"The strength of the magnetic field has been reliably and continually measured since 1835. From these measurements, we can see that the field's strength has declined by about seven percent since then, giving a half-life of about 1,400 years. This means that in 1,400 years it will be one-half as strong, in 2,800 years it will be one-fourth as strong, and so on. There will be a time not many thousands of years distant when the field will be too small to perform as a viable shield for earth." Earth's Magnetic Field | The Institute for Creation Research

We still have enough left to protect from cosmic rays. There are many other articles, some with charts, some with lots of data, showing how strong the field was originally. Then the half life is applied. That dates original age. Future collapse enough to prohibit life is in a few thousand years away.

the question in the op,

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

is what really interests me, though of course we would change that to "proper measurements of the magnetic field."

Carbon dating is only good for about 50,000 years.

 

[RobbyEarl]

God can do what He wills to do. All He has to do is speak the word. Well, He made it did He not?

 

[Dino246]

according to the genealogies take literally Abraham was born 292 years after the Flood. Shem was alive and had 210 years longer to live (he outlived Abraham). Thus the Flood occurred no earlier than 2300 BC.

where is the evidence for such a Flood. It must have left huge traces if it happened,

I'm not sure I'm reading you right... are you saying that there is little evidence for a fairly recent worldwide flood? If so, then perhaps you would consider doing a little research; perhaps start with the Grand Canyon and Mount St. Helens. There are many fascinating videos on YouTube on the subject.

 

[Word_Swordsman]

according to the genealogies take literally Abraham was born 292 years after the Flood. Shem was alive and had 210 years longer to live (he outlived Abraham). Thus the Flood occurred no earlier than 2300 BC.

where is the evidence for such a Flood. It must have left huge traces if it happened,

The Bible doesn't support Shem outliving Abram. Shem lived 502 years after the flood, begetting Arphaxad. 2 years after the flood. Gen 11:11. That chapter has Abram birthed centuries after Arphaxad, so of course Shem didn't live to see Abram.

There remain thousands of feet of "sudden" sedimentary deposits around the globe, capturing an unimaginable volume of preserved and "fossilized" organic remains, all out of order from the predictions of the evolutionary models.

 

[Bowman]

I would assume by far most science research centers, universities, science professors, science professionals, science textbook authors, people otherwise engaged in science projects don't personally know a single Nobel Prize winner.

They most certainly know of their works, and, more importantly, employ their works in their research.

Einstein was a Nobel Prize winner in physics.

So you apparently assume that's the standard for practice of sound science? The cancer research center near here is bogus without a Noble Prize winner on staff?

So...

Now, you are comparing ICR to the medical field?

Come on.....how many of the so-called 'scientists' at ICR are regularly peer-reviewed for integrity by a regulatory board?

Zero.

Your response is typical of opponents of truth. I was like that, being brainwashed by teachers of science during the 1960's in grade school, then more in college, until the mid 70's. I got my senses about evolution from sitting in bleachers listening to Dr. Dwayne Gish debate the best his opponents could muster. The word passed among evolutionists it is best not to face him. Along came other great debaters and seminar speakers like from ICR. All along the favorite replies to creationists has been what you did, challenging authority, instead of giving an actual debate answer. The obvious avoidance has been the possibility of those secularists' textbook sanctity, IOW a threat to their book sales if embarrassed too much. In those days their books still contained articles about Piltdown Man and the many other hoaxes and downright horrible "science", which were not adequately rescinded in subsequent textbooks. The old false posters are still in use in our local schools, for the sake of amazing art value.

That's pretty much all the fact there is for evolutionists today. They live out a great lie that plunges many into disbelief of the entire Bible, given they are taught Genesis is a lie, at best a fairy tale, that Jesus and the apostles took literally as truth. Much "blood" is on the hands of evolutionists who will face judgment from an outraged God.

You are the only one to mention 'evolution'.

For some back-woods, old-school reasoning, you magically relate an old earth to evolution.

Stop it!

Even a billion-of-years-old Universe does not allow for any type of evolution.

True science backs up the Genesis account of creation and the flood, the beginning only about 6,000 years ago. The Genesis account of origins defines good science. The Bible provides the only logical explanations of what people should know. Creation scientists fill in the rest of the story, which actually enables good modern science, as God is still awarding discovery of truth.

Now...

Where do you get the 6K figure from?

The MT?

The LXX?

Or....the Samaritan Pentateuch...?

The difference is on the order of thousands of years...

 

[Bowman]

I keep wondering myself how he is still here..

The truth can't be banned, Christian.

 

[Bowman]

well lets see.

You think Satan is bound

Scripture states very plainly, and repeatedly, that he is bound.

Which means you must believe in replacement theology.

Which means you believe in a man made anti-Semite doctrine of end times.

So yeah...

Non-sequitur.

 

[Bowman]

The laws of physics are being used more these days to limit earth's age to thousands of years, not millions or billions.

Only in YEC fantasyland.

E=mc^2 proves otherwise.

 

[thecreationtutor]

Only in YEC fantasyland.

E=mc^2 proves otherwise.

Saw this - fantasy land - YEC - love to see you say that to Jesus Christ one day

 

[Bowman]

Re: What a joke...

It has been put right in front of you multiple times....but you dont even see it...or you do and are ignoring it, so have a good day

Bowman: 'Where's your evidence.?'

Kodiak: 'Ummm....check out these buzz words...ummmm...'alpha'.....ummm...'redshift'.....btw....you must do your own research, cause I can't be bothered...and you must come to the same lame conclusion as me, or else I'm done with you.'

 

[Bowman]

thanks! so, it sounds like God forms adam and eve as children, though not as babies. if that's the case, then God is forming something new which appears old than it is.

No.

The very Hebrew definition I provided states to 'have children’ . Having a child does not mean they are anything but newborns.

Even the modern definition of a 'child' can go back to the womb.

So...hardly an appearance of age...

 

[Bowman]

well, I'm not sure that something couldn't be both a miracle and a deception...

You don't sound very confident.

but assuming it's not a deception, it would seem then that the best way to view the story is that Jesus makes real wine out of water.real wine has the appearance of being aged, so it would be a good possible parallel with making a universe that appears aged.

A miracle, as already stated in the scripture from which it comes.....why make it out to be something other than what it says it is?

If all else fails, read the text.

Simple...

 

[Bowman]

do you know of things that actually point to the 6,000 year date? there's lots of stuff about how the billions of years must be wrong... but things that put the date at 6,000?

The 6K date is based upon the un-biblical notion that the Genesis Generations must be summed to arrive at a specific date.

But....summing which listing?

The MT....or the LXX...or the Samaritan Pentateuch?

The difference can be thousands of years....but YEC's ignore this...and forge ahead undaunted...

 

[Tintin]

The Bible doesn't support Shem outliving Abram. Shem lived 502 years after the flood, begetting Arphaxad. 2 years after the flood. Gen 11:11. That chapter has Abram birthed centuries after Arphaxad, so of course Shem didn't live to see Abram.

I'm a bit confused. You mentioned that Shem lived for 502 years, following the Great Flood. But then you say Abram was born centuries after Arphaxad. But Shem had a very long life, so it's quite possible that Shem still lived around the time of Abram (I mean, that's what - 400ish years after the Flood?)

 

[Bowman]

Saw this - fantasy land - YEC - love to see you say that to Jesus Christ one day

I'm already Saved, brother, aren't you?

Or...

Since my worldview is different than that of yours....you are somehow 'saved' over me?

Get over yourself.

 

[Tintin]

I don't care if you're the Queen of freaking England, Bowman. You need to learn to respect your brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[kodiak]

Re: What a joke...

Bowman: 'Where's your evidence.?'

Kodiak: 'Ummm....check out these buzz words...ummmm...'alpha'.....ummm...'redshift'.....btw....you must do your own research, cause I can't be bothered...and you must come to the same lame conclusion as me, or else I'm done with you.'

What happened to honesty? I put the evidence right in front of you even describing the finding of alpha....but you can't disprove what I have said....I don't need you to come to my conclusions, that is you....I wanted honest and logical discussion, but misquoting me multiple times and saying I didn't give you information I did is wrong and deception....My mind is open to the truth, but you won't discuss anything I bring up....I will give you all the information again, if you agree to discuss this logically without attacking people or using other fallacies and to stop misquoting and trying to assume you know what I am thinking....That is not basing opinion on fact....