Jump to content


Photo

Carbon 14 - A Serious Problem For Old Earthers


  • Please log in to reply
152 replies to this topic

#141 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,046 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 28 April 2015 - 05:43 AM

>>
Not true.  Can you explain why my idea is not a good one?  (I assume you read my previous posts describing it).

 

Sorry, but I didn't read your idea.  I only saw Paul's post and responded.>>

Please...it is not fair to us to make us have to repeat stuff just because you choose to not read the thread.  AFTER I said I already explained this, you SHOULD go back to read it...rather than making me restate it.  Or just stop asking me to reply to YOUR stuff. 

 

I apologize, Dave, but, the truth is that I am extremely busy right now (it's the silly season for me at work) and will be for the next couple of months.  However, I do enjoy reading this forum and replying when I can.  But, I simply don't have the time to read everything let alone do the analysis required to objectively consider some of the statements.  You can respond to my "fly bys" if you want to; or not if you don't want to.

 

 

My suggestion was in #110:

 

>>BTW, what did you think of my idea for proving whether the source of the C14 in a mosasaur's humerus was due to modern bacteria, which would be concentrated mostly near the surface of the bone.  Comparing a larger bone to a small one, or sample borings from various locations would solve the question...because you should have much MORE bacteria in the small one (as a %).  Good idea, right?>>

 

AND...SN, do you agree with Pi that a 4% modern content is WAY too much to attribute to modern bacterial contamination?  If so, then what ELSE explains it...other than "it CAN'T be a legit C14 date coz that screws everything up for ev's!"

 

 

 

I honestly have no idea.  Like I said before, there are C14 data points that seem to indicate a younger earth.  Of course, those are in direct contradiction to other data sets, e.g., radiometric dating, star light, etc. that point to a much older earth and universe.  Obviously, they both can't be right.



#142 Paul79

Paul79

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado Springs, Colorado

Posted 28 April 2015 - 07:12 AM

Hi SN, how does starlight point to an older earth? I don't think I have heard that before. Older universe, yes but older earth? What is the direct link here?



#143 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,114 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 70
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 28 April 2015 - 07:29 AM

Hi SN, how does starlight point to an older earth? I don't think I have heard that before. Older universe, yes but older earth? What is the direct link here?

The direct link is that YEC, such as yourself point to a literal Genesis.  In that account, the Earth was created (on day 1) before the stars (on day 4).



#144 Paul79

Paul79

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado Springs, Colorado

Posted 28 April 2015 - 08:12 AM

Hi piasan, I do point to a literal Genesis but that doesn't answer how if you knew the age of a star X lightyears from your point of reference you could determine the age of the earth by just using the star light. For example what logical reason could you use to determine the minimum age of the earth if all you knew was that a star existed 5 billion lightyears from the earth? The earth could have been created any number of years after the 5 billion lightyears and you wouldn't know it. If you are referring to the Nebular Theory then there is a lot more than just lightyears that come into play.



#145 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,114 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 70
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 28 April 2015 - 10:49 AM

Hi piasan, I do point to a literal Genesis but that doesn't answer how if you knew the age of a star X lightyears from your point of reference you could determine the age of the earth by just using the star light. For example what logical reason could you use to determine the minimum age of the earth if all you knew was that a star existed 5 billion lightyears from the earth? The earth could have been created any number of years after the 5 billion lightyears and you wouldn't know it. If you are referring to the Nebular Theory then there is a lot more than just lightyears that come into play.

I don't claim we can determine the age of the Earth from distant starlight.  We can, however, get a pretty good guess on the minimum age of the universe in the order of billions of years.  Since the Genesis account has stars being younger than the Earth, there's a real problem for YEC literalism.



#146 Paul79

Paul79

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado Springs, Colorado

Posted 28 April 2015 - 11:41 AM

I don't claim we can determine the age of the Earth from distant starlight.  We can, however, get a pretty good guess on the minimum age of the universe in the order of billions of years.  Since the Genesis account has stars being younger than the Earth, there's a real problem for YEC literalism.

I was referring to SN's post that starlight shows an old earth and universe but I think we are just talking past each other and now looking back at his post I don't think he was referring to an old earth just from starlight either.

 

There are some theories regarding starlight in a young universe and I am sure you have heard of them. I don't claim I can defend them though since that is not my area of expertise.

 

Anyway, sorry for getting off-topic from the C14 issue.



#147 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,141 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 28 April 2015 - 08:12 PM

I don't claim we can determine the age of the Earth from distant starlight.  We can, however, get a pretty good guess on the minimum age of the universe in the order of billions of years.  Since the Genesis account has stars being younger than the Earth, there's a real problem for YEC literalism.

 

I agree with Pi...that you cannot say (as Paul seems to) that God made the stars and then billions of EARTH-years later He made Earth.  That does not fit Genesis.  There are models or arguments made however that suggest that time could naturally happen faster outside the event horizon of a white hole...which could have existed during the creation week.  Meaning billions of years occurred in deep space while only a day or part of a day happened on Earth.  Also it would not violate the nature of God if He were to create the stars AND the light beams which have apparent events which never happened.  This is not against the nature of God when He decides to do a miracle.  OR He simply could do a miracle and speed up time wherever and as much as He wanted...so that the light would appear on Earth at the time He wanted it to...so man would have it for keeping time or just to wonder at.  Most theists have no problem if God made a fully formed tree...NOT grown from a seed.  They say He might do that if He had a purpose.  Well, it is not too much of a stretch to say God might also have a purpose in instantly making stars very far away, and yet wanting the light to be here immediately.  Creation DOES involve SOME miraculous events, you know.  We can also find some natural explanations (like white hole etc.) but we should not shy away from any miracle God wants to do which is not against His nature.  And it does NOT violate His nature to create mature objects including stars or starlight.

 

Pi I wish you would try to not participate in hijacking the thread...which is what you accused ME of on another thread.  It's sort of hypocritical you know. 



#148 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,141 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 28 April 2015 - 08:46 PM

 

 

Pi I wish you would try to not participate in hijacking the thread...which is what you accused ME of on another thread.  It's sort of hypocritical you know. 

 

You might want to read the wiki entry for "Lumpers and Splitters"...which is used in regard to evolution.  I guess I'm more of a lumper and Pi is more of a splitter. 

 

"The earliest use of these terms was by Charles Darwin, in a letter to J. D. Hooker in 1857, "(Those who make many species are the 'splitters,' and those who make few are the 'lumpers.') They were introduced more widely by George G. Simpson in his 1945 work "The Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals." As he put it, "splitters make very small units – their critics say that if they can tell two animals apart, they place them in different genera … and if they cannot tell them apart, they place them in different species. … Lumpers make large units – their critics say that if a carnivore is neither a dog nor a bear, they call it a cat."[1]"



#149 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,114 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 70
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 28 April 2015 - 10:45 PM

I agree with Pi...that you cannot say (as Paul seems to) that God made the stars and then billions of EARTH-years later He made Earth.  That does not fit Genesis.  There are models or arguments made however that suggest that time could naturally happen faster outside the event horizon of a white hole...which could have existed during the creation week.  Meaning billions of years occurred in deep space while only a day or part of a day happened on Earth.  Also it would not violate the nature of God if He were to create the stars AND the light beams which have apparent events which never happened.  This is not against the nature of God when He decides to do a miracle.  OR He simply could do a miracle and speed up time wherever and as much as He wanted...so that the light would appear on Earth at the time He wanted it to...so man would have it for keeping time or just to wonder at.  Most theists have no problem if God made a fully formed tree...NOT grown from a seed.  They say He might do that if He had a purpose.  Well, it is not too much of a stretch to say God might also have a purpose in instantly making stars very far away, and yet wanting the light to be here immediately.  Creation DOES involve SOME miraculous events, you know.  We can also find some natural explanations (like white hole etc.) but we should not shy away from any miracle God wants to do which is not against His nature.  And it does NOT violate His nature to create mature objects including stars or starlight.

 

Pi I wish you would try to not participate in hijacking the thread...which is what you accused ME of on another thread.  It's sort of hypocritical you know. 

It's kind of funny that you would first respond to Paul (which is all I did) then criticize me for participating "in hijacking the thread."

 

 

You might want to read the wiki entry for "Lumpers and Splitters"...which is used in regard to evolution.  I guess I'm more of a lumper and Pi is more of a splitter. 

 

"The earliest use of these terms was by Charles Darwin, in a letter to J. D. Hooker in 1857, "(Those who make many species are the 'splitters,' and those who make few are the 'lumpers.') They were introduced more widely by George G. Simpson in his 1945 work "The Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals." As he put it, "splitters make very small units – their critics say that if they can tell two animals apart, they place them in different genera … and if they cannot tell them apart, they place them in different species. … Lumpers make large units – their critics say that if a carnivore is neither a dog nor a bear, they call it a cat."[1]"

So, less than an hour after you complain about me "hijacking the thread" you post this completely new material on classification systems.

 

Does anyone else see the irony?



#150 Paul79

Paul79

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado Springs, Colorado

Posted 29 April 2015 - 07:06 AM

I agree with Pi...that you cannot say (as Paul seems to) that God made the stars and then billions of EARTH-years later He made Earth.  That does not fit Genesis.

indydave, I believe that God made everything the first week of creation including everything in the universe. I don't believe in anything being billions of years old and I believe in a literal Genesis. Sorry if that was not clear. I was just trying to figure out how one can determine the age of the earth from starlight but I mispoke because SN was not trying to say that it could be done with starlight alone. God can create a mature universe in a weeks time and I don't feel that God was being deceptive at all. Sorry for the sidetrack. I won't talk about anything other than C14 on this thread anymore.



#151 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,141 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 29 April 2015 - 08:53 AM

I definitely am not being critical of you Paul...I think that we should be able to have a lot of latitude in discussing some topic that relates to the main one.  I was just razzed by Pi about doing that...and he "hijacked" MY discussion to force it to a new topic a time or two and I didn't like that. 

 

To Pi...I was just pointing out your hypocrisy.  I showed the wiki quote because it was directly addressing the question of when should we create a new topic and then jump over to it.  It was NOT about wanting to address ev. classification systems!  I did not intend to say we must be constant "splitters" to be more like you.  I'm more of a lumper.  I just wanted to show...mainly to be funny...how it was like the constant problem there is (for all of us) in trying to figure if something is the same as something else...or different. 



#152 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,141 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 30 April 2015 - 08:52 AM

Me:>>AND...SN, do you agree with Pi that a 4% modern content is WAY too much to attribute to modern bacterial contamination?  If so, then what ELSE explains it...other than "it CAN'T be a legit C14 date coz that screws everything up for ev's!"

 

 

 

SN>>I honestly have no idea.  Like I said before, there are C14 data points that seem to indicate a younger earth.  Of course, those are in direct contradiction to other data sets, e.g., radiometric dating, star light, etc. that point to a much older earth and universe.  Obviously, they both can't be right.>>

 

I suggest you NOT lump together all the evidence...at least while you are trying to consider the C14 evidence.  You can ALWAYS say "all the OTHER evidence shows AE, so I will just disregard anything showing YE."  If that's going to be your answer, then why waste any of your time? 

 

4% is HUGE.  Just think if you took a bone, cut it open to the inner part...and it had 4% bacteria by weight inside.  It would be OBVIOUS.  Someone didn't do a good job cleaning that sample!  (And that is if all of it was MODERN.  What if it were 5000 y.o. bacteria?  Then it would have to be 8% !)  And if you did find that much, your testing for the presence of bac. DNA would SHOW that you had LOTS of bacteria. 

 

The video I asked you to watch about Brown's explanation on radioactivity would help...if you would take time to watch it.  It explains all the OTHER radio-dating evidence that you place high confidence in.


  • Paul79 likes this

#153 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,141 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 30 April 2015 - 08:53 AM

Regarding starlight...although the white hole idea IMO does potentially explain starlight without a miracle (after the creation itself)...if you do rule IN a supernatural event like a deity creating everything, why must you hogtie Him to do it all in "normal time" speed?  Maybe He was in a hurry and wanted His new humans to get to see stars...so He sped up time?  Only someone DETERMINED to, would see that as something only an evil and deceptive god would do.  Nobody in my neighborhood would see me as evil if I plant a tree...as if I were trying to deceive all of them to think I had grown it myself from a seed.  Especially if I wrote something and gave it to all of them TELLING them how that tree got there.  They would understand I had the ability to buy it and move it in...and just didn't want to wait.  They might see me as evil if I don't spray my dandelions though.


  • Paul79 likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users