-
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.
the way you've presented this is deceptive. as far as i can tell from researching the topic, no study of rings was ever made on the cores brought up while digging for the planes. however, gung-ho young earth creationists eager to spit on established scientific methods have taken an average ice-core layer thickness and divided the ~250ft by it to come up with a number of rings.
when scientists take ice core samples, it's done on relatively stable glacial sheets where average precipitation is low. the area these planes were found in is an active glacial sheet that regularly sees 10ft of snow accumulation a year - so the amount of ice buildup isn't surprising - and no sane scientist would use a core in that area to date anything. his peers would cite the same thing you cite if he tried to publish a study using cores from the site.
we need to be just as careful if not more careful as the secular community when examining evidence and making claims. a lot of well-meaning Christians have been brought up under the impression that all science is deliberately deceptive and part of some weird global conspiracy, and that all scientists are willfully ignorant of basic facts and unable to use reason. now there are willfully ignorant people who are blinded to the truth, and there are errors in assumptions and interpretations of data, but science itself is a search for and study of the truth about God's natural creation. we mustn't toss the baby out with the bathwater, and we must do due diligence so that we don't disgrace the Faith.
be sober minded.
when scientists take ice core samples, it's done on relatively stable glacial sheets where average precipitation is low. the area these planes were found in is an active glacial sheet that regularly sees 10ft of snow accumulation a year - so the amount of ice buildup isn't surprising - and no sane scientist would use a core in that area to date anything. his peers would cite the same thing you cite if he tried to publish a study using cores from the site.
we need to be just as careful if not more careful as the secular community when examining evidence and making claims. a lot of well-meaning Christians have been brought up under the impression that all science is deliberately deceptive and part of some weird global conspiracy, and that all scientists are willfully ignorant of basic facts and unable to use reason. now there are willfully ignorant people who are blinded to the truth, and there are errors in assumptions and interpretations of data, but science itself is a search for and study of the truth about God's natural creation. we mustn't toss the baby out with the bathwater, and we must do due diligence so that we don't disgrace the Faith.
be sober minded.
No, I haven't seen that, and unfortunately you didn't cite it in order to educate me or allow me to verify the credibility of the source. Nevertheless, I already addressed this topic. Carbon dating is merely one of several clocks, and finding fault with one doesn't fault the others. Also, it has been accepted that many factors can vary the results of carbon dating, and just happening to notice this doesn't mean that carbon dating is inaccurate. Having to contend with multiple variables doesn't "throw a monkey wrench into 2 or 3 laws of physics"... it just means that it's takes more work to come up with an answer, something that scientists are willing to do (because it's their job) and opponents of an old Earth are not willing to do because they like an inaccurate answer.
We assume that things have always worked the way that they do now. If we find that the element Samarium turns into Neodymium over time, and we can measure what percentage of it does so and how long it takes for it do so, then we assume that this decay is constant no matter how far we go back in time. We can't know for certain that it always happened at this rate, but we don't have any evidence to suggest it didn't. And when we're looking at an elemental decay that suggests an item has been around for 2 billion years, it suggests that a young Earth only thousands of years old would entail a margin of error over 99.99%... you honestly have to provide evidence to convince us that this is possible, much less probable.
I addressed the living snail problem in my post, as well as the reason that focus of opponents is on carbon dating and not the several other methods of radiometric dating. Isn't it possible that your position isn't based on the evidence but rather your biased need for a young Earth? Bias by itself isn't wrong... I'm biased, too, as is anybody that has an opinion. But you ought not to come to a conclusion and then try to reverse-engineer the evidence. That's not science, nor is it rational. If the evidence found by scientists converged on a young Earth date, then that is what the consensus would believe. However, the young Earth argument seems to try to limit the age of the Earth by negatively arguing against every scientific line of evidence, rather than presenting one that positively shows a specific age. If the Earth has a young age, what is it and where is the evidence that one can use to date it?
I addressed the living snail problem in my post, as well as the reason that focus of opponents is on carbon dating and not the several other methods of radiometric dating. Isn't it possible that your position isn't based on the evidence but rather your biased need for a young Earth? Bias by itself isn't wrong... I'm biased, too, as is anybody that has an opinion. But you ought not to come to a conclusion and then try to reverse-engineer the evidence. That's not science, nor is it rational. If the evidence found by scientists converged on a young Earth date, then that is what the consensus would believe. However, the young Earth argument seems to try to limit the age of the Earth by negatively arguing against every scientific line of evidence, rather than presenting one that positively shows a specific age. If the Earth has a young age, what is it and where is the evidence that one can use to date it?
You are right to say that we have to assume that things always were the way they are now, which is a theory that most of us generally accept. You probably think your car is parked wherever you left it last because today isn't going to be the day that objects suddenly disappear into other dimensions, nor would you assume that this has happened in the past unless you have evidence of it.
Possible doesn't mean probable. It's possible that radiometric dating is wrong, but we ought not to dismiss it just because of the possibility, because it's still probably right. Also, if we dismiss old evidence because "all we have is theory, not fact", that cuts both ways -- you can't establish a young earth, the credibility of the bible, or anything historical just because we weren't there to "see how things really were" if you're going to accept that standard.
Possible doesn't mean probable. It's possible that radiometric dating is wrong, but we ought not to dismiss it just because of the possibility, because it's still probably right. Also, if we dismiss old evidence because "all we have is theory, not fact", that cuts both ways -- you can't establish a young earth, the credibility of the bible, or anything historical just because we weren't there to "see how things really were" if you're going to accept that standard.
now, we do have evidence that suggests the decay rate can vary over time. we don't know why or how, but decay rate appears to be coupled to solar activity. best guess is an unknown neutrino interaction.
here's a link: The strange case of solar flares and radioactive elements
that said, i don't think this factor is the difference between a few thousand years versus hundreds of millions, but it's a pretty interesting discovery!
EDIT: pretty sure this is what dcontroversial was referring to - i just heard of this not long ago myself and had posted the same link in some other thread.
Last edited:
E
1. If I parked my car someplace. then went back to that place 1000 years later. I not only would expect to find it. I doubt I would even see evidence it was ever there. So your example does not fit.
2. The fact is everyone agrees that our autmosphere is not the same today as it was so many of thousands of years ago. Thus our predictions are flawed. we can only guess as to what type of decay things happened back then as today.
3. Even Peter predicted. that in the last days, people would say, things are going on today as they had in the beginning.
4. The flood (belief in or not) is what will cause us to know what to believe. If there was a catastrophic flood. (and all evidence points to the fact there was) then all our scientific data of anything before that time would be corrupt, because we have absolutely no way to know how things were before the flood. as everything was destroyed.
2. The fact is everyone agrees that our autmosphere is not the same today as it was so many of thousands of years ago. Thus our predictions are flawed. we can only guess as to what type of decay things happened back then as today.
3. Even Peter predicted. that in the last days, people would say, things are going on today as they had in the beginning.
4. The flood (belief in or not) is what will cause us to know what to believe. If there was a catastrophic flood. (and all evidence points to the fact there was) then all our scientific data of anything before that time would be corrupt, because we have absolutely no way to know how things were before the flood. as everything was destroyed.
Again... yet again... finding variables that have to be controlled for isn't the same as finding that decay rates aren't constant or inaccurate. Scientists, interested in knowing what's true, will take this into account as much as possible. It's an interesting finding and a good read, but it's not a reason to dismiss radiometric dating. Are you willing to accept that the dead sea scrolls might be 100 years old? It's a similar margin of error, and could be argued with similar arguments.
You missed the point of my analogy. I simply tried to give an example that showed that you think of the past as a reliable indicator of the present and future. The reason that you wouldn't expect your car to be in the same place 1000 years later is based on things you know to be true of the past, that objects get moved (especially rusting vehicles). If you didn't look at past patterns and deduce that they will probably continue, then the only thing you can say about where your car will be parked in 1000 years is "I have no idea".
Our atmosphere is not the same today as it was thousands of years ago... that's true. It's not radically different, nor is it exactly the same. But are you arguing that uncertainty is a good reason to assume that we can't know about the past? You argued that "all evidence points to the fact there was" a flood, but all of that evidence is old, from a time when the atmosphere was different. That's what I mean when I say that such a standard "cuts both ways", because you can't argue that scientific evidence for an old Earth is unreliable because we weren't there, yet scientific evidence for the flood is reliable despite the fact that we weren't there. The evidence in any case is from a different time and different conditions, and that evidence has aged. You have to be willing to apply the same standard to both cases, or you display an inconsistency derived from bias. There's no way that you'll convince me or anyone by evidence run through a convenient double-standard.
Finally, Peter's "prediction" is irrelevant. Of course "people would say" that things continue to follow a regular pattern, just as well as "people would say" that they wouldn't. It's a generic prediction compatible with the Barnum Effect ("something for everyone") that would be true in any time or place, and thus isn't so much a prediction as just simply an observation of human behavior. I'm sure it was as true in "not the last days" as it is in "the last days".
Our atmosphere is not the same today as it was thousands of years ago... that's true. It's not radically different, nor is it exactly the same. But are you arguing that uncertainty is a good reason to assume that we can't know about the past? You argued that "all evidence points to the fact there was" a flood, but all of that evidence is old, from a time when the atmosphere was different. That's what I mean when I say that such a standard "cuts both ways", because you can't argue that scientific evidence for an old Earth is unreliable because we weren't there, yet scientific evidence for the flood is reliable despite the fact that we weren't there. The evidence in any case is from a different time and different conditions, and that evidence has aged. You have to be willing to apply the same standard to both cases, or you display an inconsistency derived from bias. There's no way that you'll convince me or anyone by evidence run through a convenient double-standard.
Finally, Peter's "prediction" is irrelevant. Of course "people would say" that things continue to follow a regular pattern, just as well as "people would say" that they wouldn't. It's a generic prediction compatible with the Barnum Effect ("something for everyone") that would be true in any time or place, and thus isn't so much a prediction as just simply an observation of human behavior. I'm sure it was as true in "not the last days" as it is in "the last days".
E
not true. I can look to the present to determine this. You leave a car anyplace for awhile, it will be gone. though theft,being repossessed, or some other force of nature which may have moved it.
what double standard?
we believe in the flood for one of two reasons.
1. Faith, because Gods word says so
2. Science, because scientific archiology shows us there is evidence of a worldwide flood. and catastrophy.
In the same token, we can believe the atmosphere preflood was quite different than today. If we believe men lived hundreds of years. That there was no rain preflood (imagine if that happened in todays ecological mak-up? everything would die. why did it not die before the flood? etc etc etc.
We know that the canopy determines how much carbon decay occures. If the canopy before the flood was such that we had a greenhouse affect that rain was not needed, It is quite logical to undertand that radiological dely would most likly be at a minimum, if any at all.
lol. Peter prophesied people would say this, and they are. I would say that is quite relevant that a man of God predicted almost 2000 years ago exactly what is happening. To say it is irrelevant is just.. wow. I do not know what to say, but wow!
what double standard?
we believe in the flood for one of two reasons.
1. Faith, because Gods word says so
2. Science, because scientific archiology shows us there is evidence of a worldwide flood. and catastrophy.
In the same token, we can believe the atmosphere preflood was quite different than today. If we believe men lived hundreds of years. That there was no rain preflood (imagine if that happened in todays ecological mak-up? everything would die. why did it not die before the flood? etc etc etc.
We know that the canopy determines how much carbon decay occures. If the canopy before the flood was such that we had a greenhouse affect that rain was not needed, It is quite logical to undertand that radiological dely would most likly be at a minimum, if any at all.
lol. Peter prophesied people would say this, and they are. I would say that is quite relevant that a man of God predicted almost 2000 years ago exactly what is happening. To say it is irrelevant is just.. wow. I do not know what to say, but wow!
If you don't like my car analogy, I can make another one... for example, you probably think I will disagree with your last post (and it's true, I'm currently doing that). This is based on a pattern of previous events that will probably continue for whatever reason. Please stop being so obtuse about my specific example. We both know that you, like literally everyone, make predictions about the present and future based on the past, and you don't assume that the present is a special exception unless you have reason to do it.
You made an argument for the flood, but you had to prove my point in order to do so. You ask me to imagine a world with no rain and tell me that "everything would die". I know that this is currently the case, but how can we know that this was always true? You're taking an observation of the present and assuming that it was always true because there's no reason to assume that it's not. You say "we know that the canopy determines how much carbon decay occurs", but we don't know (by your reasoning) that this was always true. Even if we could establish your theoretical pre-flood canopy, how could we know that it affected carbon decay?
I explained why Peter's "prophecy" is irrelevant, but you still can't see it because of your bias. Let me give you an analogy so that you can put yourself in my shoes and understand it a little better. Check out this link on Qur'an predictions... the second is "the ease of memorizing the Qur'an", and the evidence cited is that thousands of Muslims have memorized portions of the Qur'an. Do you believe that this is true because the Qur'an comes from a miraculous source, or perhaps because it's such a generalized statement that it will always be true? But let's grant you the benefit of the doubt -- let's grant you that Peter prophesied something that totally came true. What does this have to do with the age of the Earth? It's irrelevant because it's off-topic, and even if you were thinking it at the time, it's not evidence of the point that you're trying to make.
You made an argument for the flood, but you had to prove my point in order to do so. You ask me to imagine a world with no rain and tell me that "everything would die". I know that this is currently the case, but how can we know that this was always true? You're taking an observation of the present and assuming that it was always true because there's no reason to assume that it's not. You say "we know that the canopy determines how much carbon decay occurs", but we don't know (by your reasoning) that this was always true. Even if we could establish your theoretical pre-flood canopy, how could we know that it affected carbon decay?
I explained why Peter's "prophecy" is irrelevant, but you still can't see it because of your bias. Let me give you an analogy so that you can put yourself in my shoes and understand it a little better. Check out this link on Qur'an predictions... the second is "the ease of memorizing the Qur'an", and the evidence cited is that thousands of Muslims have memorized portions of the Qur'an. Do you believe that this is true because the Qur'an comes from a miraculous source, or perhaps because it's such a generalized statement that it will always be true? But let's grant you the benefit of the doubt -- let's grant you that Peter prophesied something that totally came true. What does this have to do with the age of the Earth? It's irrelevant because it's off-topic, and even if you were thinking it at the time, it's not evidence of the point that you're trying to make.
F
Carbon has two stable isotopes, carbon-12 (which makes up 98.89 percent of natural carbon) and carbon-13 (1.11 percent); 12 radioactive isotopes are known, of which the longest-lived is carbon-14, which has a half-life of 5,730 ± 40 years. carbon-13 (isotope) -- Encyclopedia Britannica
Read more: Carbon-14 dating—explained in everyday terms - creation.com
Read more: Carbon-14 dating—explained in everyday terms - creation.com
T
Yes, science itself is a search for and study of the truth about God's natural creation (but only for believers). Yes, we mustn't toss the baby out with the bathwater, and we must do due diligence so that we don't disgrace the Faith. Evolutionary theory and old-earth "creationism" don't work. We shouldn't worry about this so-called disgracing of the Faith in sight of men and women just because a biblically-sound understanding of creation doesn't align with humanistic naturalistic understandings of science. If it's the Truth, then we should actively seek said Truth.
Last edited by a moderator:
I guess the important question is, "How does one know what's true"? If you start with the assumption that the truth is "about God's natural creation", then I don't think anything could dissuade you from belief in God as a creator; after all, you're accepting as an axiom the very issue that is being debated.
If "due diligence" is simply about finding apologies to explain away evidence that contradicts your faith, then you're not doing science. Science doesn't start with a conclusion and then seek evidence to support it. Rather, it accepts all known facts and tries to come up with a theory that fits them all to the best we can with what evidence we have. Evolutionary theory explains diversity in the natural world that we can observe in real time, such as viruses forming new strains. It easily explains extinction, a fact that makes little sense from a creationist viewpoint (especially if you believe in a flood sent by a god whose clear purpose in sheltering animals was their continued preservation). Evolution makes sense of genetic diversity in humans, while a single genetic line leading from Adam and Eve does not -- where would our variety in hair color come from, for example? Eye color? Skin color? If you believe this diversity came from slight genetic changes over generations, then you are arguing for evolution, even if you deny that these slight changes could add up to speciation.
Science often finds answers through experiments. One might compare, for example, people praying for a certain result and people not praying for that result, and seeing if that leads to a difference in result between the two parties. Instead, Christians (like most religions that believe in prayer) don't use a control group and instead interpret the results based on their interpretation of the conclusion. That's why a result in prayer could either be a "yes", "no", or "wait" and none of these would be dis-confirming evidence against prayer. That's if you can even get Christians to test their faith, as they can find reasons to be hostile towards scientific experiments.
If "due diligence" is simply about finding apologies to explain away evidence that contradicts your faith, then you're not doing science. Science doesn't start with a conclusion and then seek evidence to support it. Rather, it accepts all known facts and tries to come up with a theory that fits them all to the best we can with what evidence we have. Evolutionary theory explains diversity in the natural world that we can observe in real time, such as viruses forming new strains. It easily explains extinction, a fact that makes little sense from a creationist viewpoint (especially if you believe in a flood sent by a god whose clear purpose in sheltering animals was their continued preservation). Evolution makes sense of genetic diversity in humans, while a single genetic line leading from Adam and Eve does not -- where would our variety in hair color come from, for example? Eye color? Skin color? If you believe this diversity came from slight genetic changes over generations, then you are arguing for evolution, even if you deny that these slight changes could add up to speciation.
Science often finds answers through experiments. One might compare, for example, people praying for a certain result and people not praying for that result, and seeing if that leads to a difference in result between the two parties. Instead, Christians (like most religions that believe in prayer) don't use a control group and instead interpret the results based on their interpretation of the conclusion. That's why a result in prayer could either be a "yes", "no", or "wait" and none of these would be dis-confirming evidence against prayer. That's if you can even get Christians to test their faith, as they can find reasons to be hostile towards scientific experiments.
Why are you citing "creation.com"? Even from the name I knew it would be a biased party. That's why I stick to citing Wikipedia rather than reason.com or a similar atheist-biased website.
After all, the author makes arguments about samples that ought to be millions of years old. Carbon-14, because it decays exponentially, can only be used to date things to a theoretical maximum of 100,000 years (but shouldn't be used for much more than 25,000). This site, for instance, shows the carbon dating of sabertooth tigers from the La Brea Tar Pits, as listed in the arguments from the biased website. The cite I sourced is from the actual scientists who did the dating. They said:
...because, as I said, carbon-dating ought not to be used on things that old. They suspect contamination, which could account for the very small amounts of Carbon-14 -- saying something has been carbon dated to be 25,000 years+ is the same as saying that trace amounts of C-14 were found. Have you ever noticed this pattern, that everything inaccurately dated with Carbon-14 is always roughly 30K years old? That's why.
After all, the author makes arguments about samples that ought to be millions of years old. Carbon-14, because it decays exponentially, can only be used to date things to a theoretical maximum of 100,000 years (but shouldn't be used for much more than 25,000). This site, for instance, shows the carbon dating of sabertooth tigers from the La Brea Tar Pits, as listed in the arguments from the biased website. The cite I sourced is from the actual scientists who did the dating. They said:
...because, as I said, carbon-dating ought not to be used on things that old. They suspect contamination, which could account for the very small amounts of Carbon-14 -- saying something has been carbon dated to be 25,000 years+ is the same as saying that trace amounts of C-14 were found. Have you ever noticed this pattern, that everything inaccurately dated with Carbon-14 is always roughly 30K years old? That's why.