This argument is misleading. Some dating methods only give accurate results for artifacts that are several thousand years old because of the decay rate of certain isotopes, others give more accurate results over longer periods. This means certain dating methods are used for certain objects. For example, you wouldn't use Carbon-14 dating for a several million year old rock because carbon-14 will have almost totally decayed in around 20,000 years, due to the length of its half-life.
What of the dinosaurs?
- Thread starter Blain
- Start date
-
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.
This argument is misleading. Some dating methods only give accurate results for artifacts that are several thousand years old because of the decay rate of certain isotopes, others give more accurate results over longer periods. This means certain dating methods are used for certain objects. For example, you wouldn't use Carbon-14 dating for a several million year old rock because carbon-14 will have almost totally decayed in around 20,000 years, due to the length of its half-life.
As you should be able to see above, the radiocarbon dating of organic remains becomes fairly useless at a little over 55,000 years. In practical terms, we need a very large hunk of what ever it is we want to date for every old material. But the bigger the sample the more likely we get a contaminant along with the sample. The theoretical maximum C14 age would be near to 100 thousand years, but that will never be practical. As instrumentation improves we will push this back to 60, or 70 thousand years. I have seen some published dates for bone, and charcoal at the limit.
There are a nearly a dozen direct dating methods that do not use the measurement of radioactive decay. Examples that I consider highly reliable are thermoremnant luminescence, thermoremnant magnetic field orientation, electron spin resonance, amino acid racimization, and fission track dating of glasses (obsidian for a prehistoric example). They generally require better training in field collection, and sample preparation than simple radiometric methods.
For example, nearly any large tooth can be dated by Uranium/Thorium ratios. All you need to do is find a big tooth, and send it to the proper lab. Thermoremnat luminescence required recognizing a suitable specimen, sealing it in a dark container (or aluminum foil), collecting a liter of surrounding soil, detailed notes on the humidity profile of the site ... Then the lab work started with analysis of the soil sample for its isotope profile, porosity, and more. A lot of freaking work. But, the published TL data on ancient pottery and then the radiocarbon data on the contents of the pot were very cool. (Oh, and they matched).
There are a nearly a dozen direct dating methods that do not use the measurement of radioactive decay. Examples that I consider highly reliable are thermoremnant luminescence, thermoremnant magnetic field orientation, electron spin resonance, amino acid racimization, and fission track dating of glasses (obsidian for a prehistoric example). They generally require better training in field collection, and sample preparation than simple radiometric methods.
For example, nearly any large tooth can be dated by Uranium/Thorium ratios. All you need to do is find a big tooth, and send it to the proper lab. Thermoremnat luminescence required recognizing a suitable specimen, sealing it in a dark container (or aluminum foil), collecting a liter of surrounding soil, detailed notes on the humidity profile of the site ... Then the lab work started with analysis of the soil sample for its isotope profile, porosity, and more. A lot of freaking work. But, the published TL data on ancient pottery and then the radiocarbon data on the contents of the pot were very cool. (Oh, and they matched).
It is possible that the young earth believers are not able to read a graph like the one I have now posted twice. The lower data to about 11 thousand years are the direct match of radiocarbon to tree ring counts AKA Dendrochronology. I think this is the best website for tree ring studies: Welcome to the Science of Tree Rings! (The Answers in Genesis gang just make empty claims that it isn't valid). Here is a detailed plot of tree ring counts and C14 dates: 
Then there are lake varves from about 10,000 to 42,000 years. Here is an example
,
and a calibration plot:
Then there are speleothems
One thing every one should note is that the uncalibrated C14 dates are always too young.
Then there are lake varves from about 10,000 to 42,000 years. Here is an example
, and a calibration plot:
Then there are speleothems
One thing every one should note is that the uncalibrated C14 dates are always too young.
Last edited:
The young earth believers obviously are afflicted with Kainienk vision. You know, tunnel vision such that one disregards anything that does not conform to one's own point of view.
Much like radio-dating rocks, tree-ring dating is also a flawed method of dating. The flaw, as with radio-dating is in the assumption of a static earth with static conditions that remain constant. The big flaw in radio-dating as with tree-ring dating is that dynamic factors are not considerred. For example with tree-rings, internally different species of tree grow rings at different rates, presence of pests could damage rings, tree disease will also affect growth, etc. Then certain external events also effect the growth of tree-rings such as drought, vigorous environmental conditions that increase growth, pollution, etc. Just like with rocks, even more boring and mundane factors like exposure to water or sun will affect a rock or a tree and its composition. All that is without going to the much more extreme cases of cataclysms which would drastically alter any results for these two methods.
I have been reading over some radio-dating stuff the past few days. It seems to me a big flaw I am seeing over and over again is that those that have blind faith in radio-dating hold the notion that certain particles have decay rates that are extremely long and that the decay process is constant. Yet the study of radioactivity itself is only slightly over 100 years old. Note even the arbitrary guesses in some literature and artwork that certain particles have decay rates in the thousands of years. Yet no one in truth could possibly know such for certainty unless it was observed and tested for thousands of years.
Therefore the only reasonable conclusion about tree-rings and radio-dating is that it is an entirely arbitrary guess. Simply put people are counting tree-rings and counting particles in rocks, and then associating arbitrary numbers of years to them. Therefore neither method is a valid means of testing the age of anything.
I have been reading over some radio-dating stuff the past few days. It seems to me a big flaw I am seeing over and over again is that those that have blind faith in radio-dating hold the notion that certain particles have decay rates that are extremely long and that the decay process is constant. Yet the study of radioactivity itself is only slightly over 100 years old. Note even the arbitrary guesses in some literature and artwork that certain particles have decay rates in the thousands of years. Yet no one in truth could possibly know such for certainty unless it was observed and tested for thousands of years.
Therefore the only reasonable conclusion about tree-rings and radio-dating is that it is an entirely arbitrary guess. Simply put people are counting tree-rings and counting particles in rocks, and then associating arbitrary numbers of years to them. Therefore neither method is a valid means of testing the age of anything.
That is ridiculous.
I thought Dr. Hurd explained it all quite well.
No dating method is perfect. There is no absolute certainty in science. If different dating methods confirm each other's dates and numerous independent labs testing the same fossils confirm each other's results, then you can be reasonably assured that the dates are in the ballpark. Beyond a reasonable doubt.
Now, the dilemma for you is that you have to say that these dating methods are so worthless that they give a date for 65 million years or more for dinosaur fossils when the date should be 6,000 years or less according to you.
You are in a state of denial regarding science.
Nay, for if it has been all ready established that the dating methods are not perfect, and by examining the presumptions needed to conclude such dates, then it is starkly clear these dating methods are entirely arbitrary and therefore unreliable. This does not make a dillema to anyone regardless of their opinion on age of the earth as it is merely ruling out arbitrary and admittedly imperfect methods of dating.
And believe that the Lord can adjust anything related to aging .... He created time lapse in the first place
Here is an illustration I use to start my talks on creationism. This section of a pine tree is far more than just away to count tree rings. If you look close to the core on the bottom right, you will see that the early growth was very healthy with nice large and regular growth. But after 20 to 30 years the growth bands became very narrow. Plus, along the right edge you see the first of nine forest fires. The "cloudy" looking patches in the dark wood are filled in tunnels of wood boring beetles. The dark wood was stained by an increased pine pitch production also a response to the beetles. This tree was not merely a collection of growth rings; it is a history book to be read carefully.
In the same way, we learned to read the rock layers that make most of the surface of the Earth.
This idea that radioactive elements might have had different decay rates in the past is a common mistake made by young earth creationists (encouraged by false statements made by professional huskers like Ken Ham).
There are five scientific facts to disprove it, and one biblical.
The biblical counter argument is that we are taught by the Bible that God is trustworthy; we are taught that the physical creation is a testament to God (eg. [FONT="]Psalm 19, Psalm 85, Job 12)[/FONT]; we are taught that God will not lie (eg. James 1:13). For the decay constants of the universe to be arbitrarily changed, and in a way that hides the true nature of the universe would be a perversion of the biblical message. God is neither arbitrary, nor inconstant and neither can the universe be.
The first three scientific arguments are even easier to understand. The first is that radioactive decay rates are determined directly in two easy ways. The first is to take a very carefully measured amount of an pure sample of an element, put it somewhere safe and periodically measure the released radiation. This is the way that our creationist friend has suggested as the only possibility. He is wrong in two ways. The first is that by starting with a large amount of the isotope, we can directly measure the change measured radioactivity in a short amount of time. The second error is that there are isotopes that have very short half-lifes and yield a lot of energy rapidly. The physics of radioactivity are identical for short and long half-life elements. So and easy method is to make a radioactive isotope and measure its decay until the activity has entirely dissipated. I have personally done this many hundreds of times. Here is a photo of the nuclear reactor, a General Atomics TRIGA Mark IV, that I used. The blue glow is the light emitted at critical called Cherenkov radiation. I earned my radioisotope producer license before I could vote.
The third conclusive piece of evidence is that we can measure the concentrations of isotopes that can only be caused by radioactive decay. At the same time, we find that radioactive isotopes that produced these decay products are totally missing. For a list of these "missing isotopes," see;
Dalrymple, G. Brent
2005 “Ancient Earth, Ancient Skies: The age of the earth and its cosmic surroundings” Berkley: University of California Press
The fourth is that physical events have consequences. Simply put, for the radioactive decay to have been so fast that a young earth could be measured to be 4.5 billion years old, the heat generated would have melted the Earth into a glowing ball of gas. We have measured how long it took to cool down from that state to when the Earth had liquid water. That took 300 million years.
The fifth is the measurement of the speed of light, and the Fine Structure Constant, Alpha. This is a little bit complicated so I'll give a link to a short item I wrote on it a few years ago.
Stones and Bones: Are Constants Constant?
This idea that radioactive elements might have had different decay rates in the past is a common mistake made by young earth creationists (encouraged by false statements made by professional huskers like Ken Ham).
There are five scientific facts to disprove it, and one biblical.
The biblical counter argument is that we are taught by the Bible that God is trustworthy; we are taught that the physical creation is a testament to God (eg. Psalm 19, Psalm 85, Job 12); we are taught that God will not lie (eg. James 1:13). For the decay constants of the universe to be arbitrarily changed, and in a way that hides the true nature of the universe would be a perversion of the biblical message. God is neither arbitrary, nor inconstant and neither can the universe be.
The first three scientific arguments are even easier to understand. The first is that radioactive decay rates are determined directly in two easy ways. The first is to take a very carefully measured amount of an pure sample of an element, put it somewhere safe and periodically measure the released radiation. This is the way that our creationist friend has suggested as the only possibility. He is wrong in two ways. The first is that by starting with a large amount of the isotope, we can directly measure the change measured radioactivity in a short amount of time. The second error is that there are isotopes that have very short half-lifes and yield a lot of energy rapidly. The physics of radioactivity are identical for short and long half-life elements. So an easy method is to make a radioactive isotope and measure its decay until the activity has entirely dissipated. I have personally done this many hundreds of times. Here is a photo of the nuclear reactor, a General Atomics TRIGA Mark IV, that I used. The blue glow is the light emitted at critical called Cherenkov radiation. I earned my radioisotope producer license before I could vote.
View attachment 92114
The third conclusive piece of evidence is that we can measure the concentrations of isotopes that can only be caused by radioactive decay. At the same time, we find that radioactive isotopes that produced these decay products are totally missing. For a list of these "missing isotopes," see;
Dalrymple, G. Brent
2005 “Ancient Earth, Ancient Skies: The age of the earth and its cosmic surroundings” Berkley: University of California Press
The fourth is that physical events have consequences. Simply put, for the radioactive decay to have been so fast that a young earth could be measured to be 4.5 billion years old, the heat generated would have melted the Earth into a glowing ball of gas. We have measured how long it took to cool down from that state to when the Earth had liquid water. That took 300 million years.
The fifth is the measurement of the speed of light, and the Fine Structure Constant, Alpha. This is a little bit complicated so I'll give a link to a short item I wrote on it a few years ago.
Stones and Bones: Are Constants Constant?
So you show a picture of a piece of wood. Then you say after 20 or 30 years rings and such developped. The pertinent question is; how do you know it took 20 or 30 years? You don't know, you're arbitrarily guessing.
As for radioactivity, again, how do you know the decay rates of all the particles? Radioactivity has only been studied for a little over 100 years. How does one know certain particles have decay rates in the thousands of years? The answer is you don't know, it is an arbitrary guess.
Your creationist friend did have one interesting point in point one, if one could take a large amount of a material and safely contain it and not in anyways manipulate it or interfere with it, then you should be able to accurately measure its decay rate. However, not in a short amount of time. The only way to prove anything actually decays at rates of thousands of years is if you watch it for thousands of years. If this has not been done, then simply put, radioactive decay rates in the order of hundreds or more years are just an arbitrary guess.
As for radioactivity, again, how do you know the decay rates of all the particles? Radioactivity has only been studied for a little over 100 years. How does one know certain particles have decay rates in the thousands of years? The answer is you don't know, it is an arbitrary guess.
Your creationist friend did have one interesting point in point one, if one could take a large amount of a material and safely contain it and not in anyways manipulate it or interfere with it, then you should be able to accurately measure its decay rate. However, not in a short amount of time. The only way to prove anything actually decays at rates of thousands of years is if you watch it for thousands of years. If this has not been done, then simply put, radioactive decay rates in the order of hundreds or more years are just an arbitrary guess.
I hope you will stop being wrong some day. We do know. We know with absolute certainty that if there is a universe, then radioactive decay has worked the same way for a minimum of 6 billion years. We know exactly how this works.
By the way, I know you did not even to bother reading the short article I linked for you, http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2010/08/are-constants-constant.html
How lazy!
I doubt you will learn anything, but here is how we know the decay rates to the second in some cases:
Nudat 2
That is the secularist point of view. No human can know the concluded age of any dating method beyond archaeological verification because none can observe the more ancient past. Uniformitarianism dares to claim without fault that which can't be verified.
Secularists have for too long maintained what is now known to be a highly questionable combination of questionable radiometric dating methods which have been used to establish dating standards, checks and balances against other attempts to date rocks. When those methods became subject to question, the secularists moved to other methods. The advantage remained in the secularist court as funding has remained aimed at secularist academic foundations like universities. That gives secularists time to avoid new challenges while nonbiased researchers must find funding sources not provided by taxpayers and other tytpical sources.
Meanwhile, I note there is yet no comment on my recent sources, such as provided by Dr. Vernon R. Cupps, Ph.D nuclear physics, who is presenting a fine review of faulty radioactive dating that until recently was held as holy grail among evolutionists. Parts 1 & 2 are located at http://www.icr.org/article/8348/ and [url]http://www.icr.org/article/8371/ [/URL]
Once adequate reflection occurs with those earlier challenges (besides typical atheist denials) by a real expert, maybe we can move on to your alternative methods.
What you people are doing is to move the goal posts in an effort to avoid embarrassment. Well, it's too late. The old bait and switch tactics have failed you. In your own mind you have escaped, knowing the science textbooks are far from being corrected in your lifetime. But it will remain that God is the one who judges deceivers. I would rather witness the soon demise of secular naturalism without having to hope for that final reckoning. In the meanwhile countless souls are being sacrificed at the hands of atheists who are profiting from lies. The great lie is leaving man made in the same image and likeness as animals. That puts man on the same footing of relationship asa worm with God. That is the reason Christians are gathering qualified scientists to expose such blasphemies, using the same science techniques as atheists, observing the same empirical data. The difference is the conclusions, one side looking for evidence denying God, the other collecting evidence for God's word and true science.
It is my intention to keep atheistic lying exposed for the sake of Christians and those still searching, allowing fair decisions. I was contaminated the first 31 years of my life, and will do what I can to prevent such hindrances to anyone I can warn.
T
Tintin
Guest
I'm not going to bother with this too much because it's like beating your head against a brick wall, but if we, as moderns, really think people from thousands of years ago saw lizards and snakes and thought they were dragons/dinosaurs, we're the ones who are idiots, not the ancients. Just saying.
No one can prove anything... That's the point, it's a faith either way. Either we believe the Bible and God made Adam or we believe man, Ape made man.
That points out a serious underlying modern danger in the Church today. I am a Christian, a Bible believer. I will not take liberty to read the word of God in the eyes of a skeptic. So it is I will maintain all reported observations that God had recorded in the Bible. I hope you agree.
Genesis 3:1 (KJV) [SUP]1 [/SUP] Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
Please, all who read this, keep in mind the talking serpent that could converse with a woman was part of the same creation as hers was. Look up the Hebrew in any of the four versions of the Tanach. It was obviously upright so it could be cursed by God to crawl on it's belly. Satan, also called a dragon, Leviathan, serpent, has not been described in the Bible as being a typical snake since that episode in the Garden. He is characterized with word images of the most dreaded beasts man could comprehend, yet is today stripped of power. by Jesus.
The importance of taking it all literally is because it sets the possibility of man having a living relationship with God, being to being, who made us like Him so we could possibly visit with Him. Animals can't relate to God with mind, will, emotions, memories, with those combined capabilities to enable communication with God. Only man can do that. He searches man's soul, knows our heart, not said of animals. Like in Job, in which God allowed Satan to tempt a man that feared God, Satan used the thing most dear to Adam besides God, Eve, employing the service of an animal. The New Testament takes that literally for the founding of significant gospel doctrine, the Fall, and what it took to bring Adam down, laying the course of action for the Second Man Adam, Jesus.
I believe it is heretical to accept parts of the Genesis record that please, discarding parts that offend, which men inspired by God literally believed. We haven't even hardly touched on the Flood, which is also endorsed in the NT. Give that some thought.