And how does one know that Carbon dating is reliable up to 60,000 years? Do you have an object that you absolutely know beyond a shadow of a doubt is 60,000 years old you can test it on? These are serious questions.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Ancient human remains found in Israel
- Thread starter Deacon
- Start date
And how does one know that Carbon dating is reliable up to 60,000 years? Do you have an object that you absolutely know beyond a shadow of a doubt is 60,000 years old you can test it on? These are serious questions.
Steadfast Fred
Active Member
I would say your option here is not a wise choice at all. Your option is to dismiss the six day creation and consider it a myth. For the child of God, that should not even be an option. God's Word states the earth and everything in it was created in six days. I will stick with that.
Steadfast Fred
Active Member
Carbon dating cannot be accurate at all. Scripture tells us that the earth and everything in it was created in six days.
Even the dirt in the earth itself cannot be older than the first day of creation.
glfredrick
New Member
Scripture does indeed tell us that the earth was created in 6 days, but it does not say "when" those 6 days happened.
Steadfast Fred
Active Member
By carefully studying the ages of those in the Old Testament and the ages of their sons, along with historical records of some names in the Babylonian Empire, one can see that the earth is approximately 6,000 years old.
glfredrick
New Member
That is a false argument as we cannot know that EVERY piece of data is in place to determine the actual age of Creation from the study of Scripture. Many who do hold to a young earth perspective (as do I) have already said as much more than once.
Why be dogmatic about something that we don't and cannot know? Isn't that sort of "reading into" the text of Scripture and in effect doing the same thing Eve did with God's word, adding words that God did not say or give us?
This is the silliness of the hardcore young earther position. One doesnt need to dismiss data and perceived phenomena to acheive their position. Yet in their quest for dogmatic literalism they close off reasonable points that can reconcile the data and Scripture.
Why not point out that in the Creation epics that it seems that God creates with both intention and age? Why can't God create a world/universe that appears to be millions/billions of years old?
This better approach certainly helps integrate the views and provides jist as biblical a view.
It is a scientific fact that for every 10,000yrs of existence there is approximately 1" of dust accumulation on the moon. The original Mars lander was built to land in several feet of dust. When they landed, they found about 3/4" of dust. Instead of changing their theories to match the physical evidence, "scientists" try to explain away another "anomaly" in the scientific method. There are several proofs that the earth cannot be older than 10,000yrs.
Man invents a machine that tells them the bible is a collection of tales, not to be taken literally. In our limited understanding, we have to limit God. To say he could not create man the way he said he did.
It HAD to take longer. He HAD to start with apes. There was no Garden of Eden, no Tower of Babel, no flood, Jonah never existed, there are scientific explanations for the Egyptian plagues, there is nothing wrong with women preachers, or openly gay choir members, and Israel is done as God's chosen people.
Why have the challenges to carbon dating not been addressed ?
It HAD to take longer. He HAD to start with apes. There was no Garden of Eden, no Tower of Babel, no flood, Jonah never existed, there are scientific explanations for the Egyptian plagues, there is nothing wrong with women preachers, or openly gay choir members, and Israel is done as God's chosen people.
Why have the challenges to carbon dating not been addressed ?
quantumfaith
Active Member
Nor does it define the rate of time passage, relative to the rate of time passage in our little "neck of the cosmos". GL, I know you know, time passage rate is not a constant, we Know time passes at differing rates relative to our own based on at least two variables, gravity and velocity. Both of these can and do significantly affect the rate of passage of time.
Just in case it is not obvious, I am not of the YEC flavor. HNY!!!!
quantumfaith
Active Member
Brother Curtis, I know you must remember your exponential and logarthmic functions from engineering school, I do not know how precisely carbon 14 measurement devices are calibrated, but the concept is rather simple, knowing the rate at which C14 decays in organic material, then it becomes a rather simple ratio problem.
Yes. They tell me Carbon 14's half life is 5360 years, give or take a few. That is a joke. There is no way to measure that, it is pure conjecture. Guesswork.
It has been proven that Carbon 14 depletes differently, in different climates. Live mollusks have been tested to be thousands of years old.
The only way to measure time is in real time.
It has been proven that Carbon 14 depletes differently, in different climates. Live mollusks have been tested to be thousands of years old.
The only way to measure time is in real time.
glfredrick
New Member
I would assume, based on your user name and other posts that I've seen from you on the subject of cosmology, that you are probably more in line with the thinking of Hugh Ross, Frank Tippler, etc. I've read all of them... They make some great points, but tend to let observation of the general revelation overpower specific revelation. I am not in the camp that thinks that is a good idea.
To paraphrase Danny Akin (as I recall his having said in a sermon at Southern Seminary), "I know that there are many evidences that fly in the face of our understanding of Scripture, but I have chosen to follow Christ, which means that I am a 'Christian," and as such, I will be informed by the Word that God reveals to us even if it might seem that another source was more accurate or more informed. My salvation depends on my response to the Word of God, not to the observations of the world around us."
I do appreciate the work they and others have done in the realm of anthropic principles, and the possibility that the laws of physics allow for God. Their ground-breaking work in that regard makes their material worth a read, even if one disagrees with their conclusion based on their research.
quantumfaith
Active Member
Please, define for us what is REAL TIME?
When the method was first developed in the late 1940s and for a few years afterward, the method did make the assumption that the ratio of C14 to C12 was constant. As a rough approximation, the assumption is valid. However, as an increasing number of carbon-14 dates were obtained, including many on objects of known age, it became clear that the assumption was not strictly true. This fact has been known to the scientific community for several decades and mathematical correction factors have been developed to adjust for the fact that the production rate of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has not been completely constant over the past few thousand years. In other words, modern radiocarbon dating uses a calibration method to correct for the problem that Major views as a critical weakness of the method. But curiously, even though these correction methods have been in use for several decades, critics often fail to discuss them. It seems clear that many do not study the method well enough to be aware of the use of these correction and calibration methods. The fact that the raw uncorrected dates must be corrected for the less than perfect equilibrium in no way invalidates the method. To use an analogy, if you had a yardstick that was only 34 inches long rather than 36, it would still be usable, provided that you knew the details of its imperfection.
Not to mention, C14 and other radiometric dating methods, even much more accurate are used in conjuction with other techniques to provide an overall landscape of support.
I have not read any details on this recent "discovery" in Israel, but if they have dated the remains to 400,000 plus years, my guess is that C14 was not the method used. Other, even more reliable radiometric decay models were most likely used.
quantumfaith
Active Member
I have read very little of Ross, and none of Tippler. My personal favorites at the moment in this domain are:
Dr. Gerald Schroeder (jewish) phycisit, former professor at MIT
Dr. Stephen Barr (Catholic theologian/phycisist)
Dr. John Polkinghorne
IMHO, the intellectual contributions of these (and others) assist the community of believers in addressing the increasing secular divide in higher education increasingly dominated by the militant athiests. This is one of those "non-essential" areas, much like the C vs. A debate but it too causes heated debates and cries of heresy and the like. Of this, there is no need.
freeatlast
New Member
can you Explain how one comes up with a correction rate when they have no way to prove the amount that needs correcting. In other words if they cannot re-create the difference in the decay rate without knowing all the varables and the time involved in the rate of decay, and they cannot, how can they say that they have come up with accurate measurings?
Last edited by a moderator:
freeatlast
New Member
Someone on here stated that God can create a world and universe that looks millions or even billions of years old. I think here in lies the problem. He did not do that. What exactly does a new creation look like?
It was me (maybe another too) who said that God creates with age. So let me ask you: was Adam created a grown man or an infant?
freeatlast
New Member
I assume a grown man, but at what point in the aging process I do not know. Perhaps 18 or so, but who knows, but his size or maturity did not make him old or look old as we understand old looking, and I am sure that his body was not created with wear and tear on it. To compare the earth and Adam the earth had no wear and tear on it as it has today. There is no reason to believe that God created an old or old looking earth. What we see today is the result of the fall and the flood and even what we see has no scientific eveidence of old age. Yes it is claimed as being old by un-believers in the creation account but the claims are speculative, not proven by science and certainly not supported by scripture.
Last edited by a moderator: