Jump to content


Photo

Scientific Dating Methods For A Young Earth


  • Please log in to reply
108 replies to this topic

#1 Bill Ludlow

Bill Ludlow

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 95 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mesa, Arizona

Posted 19 July 2015 - 04:19 PM

Are there any scientific dating methods that support the young earth creationist belief that the Earth is around 6,000 years old? 



#2 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 19 July 2015 - 07:20 PM

Yes...carbon 14 dating.  Please check the topic here:  link



#3 Bill Ludlow

Bill Ludlow

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 95 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mesa, Arizona

Posted 19 July 2015 - 07:22 PM

No, Carbon 14 dating does not suggest the Earth is 6,000 years old.  It dates things up to 55,000 years.  



#4 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 19 July 2015 - 07:27 PM

6000 is less than 55,000.  So have you read that thread?



#5 Bill Ludlow

Bill Ludlow

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 95 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mesa, Arizona

Posted 19 July 2015 - 07:31 PM

I've probably heard all the creationist arguments against Carbon 14 dating but maybe I will check it out if I have time.  

Yes, 6000 is less than 55,000.  Something that gives us dates up to 55,000 years is not an example of a dating method that supports a 6,000 year old Earth.



#6 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 19 July 2015 - 07:42 PM

Creationists are not against C14...they would say it supports YE.  MANY dino bones, coal, diamonds etc. have given C14 dates in the 40,000 year range or less.  AE's have to say there was a ton of contamination (by modern bacteria) or that there was in situ formation of C14 from a nearby source of Uranium...the "neutron capture" idea.  But there are several reasons that is not a good explanation.  See link



#7 Bill Ludlow

Bill Ludlow

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 95 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mesa, Arizona

Posted 19 July 2015 - 08:33 PM

I'm asking for scientific dating methods that show the Earth is 6,000 years old.  Not interested in a discussion on the merits of C 14 dating.  



#8 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 19 July 2015 - 08:38 PM

If coal or dino bones have significant C14, then that means the assumed ages for them have to be wrong.  You SHOULD be interested in C14, but if you aren't, I won't try to twist your arm.  Maybe someone else will respond to you.



#9 Bill Ludlow

Bill Ludlow

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 95 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mesa, Arizona

Posted 19 July 2015 - 09:27 PM

If coal or dino bones have significant C14, then that means the assumed ages for them have to be wrong.  You SHOULD be interested in C14, but if you aren't, I won't try to twist your arm.  Maybe someone else will respond to you.

It could also mean the test was not done properly or the sample was contaminated.  I'm very familiar with the creationist testing of dino bones for C 14.  That is not relevant here, however, as you have not demonstrated it is a scientific method that dates the Earth at 6,000 years old.  



#10 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,541 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 19 July 2015 - 09:39 PM

Are there any scientific dating methods that support the young earth creationist belief that the Earth is around 6,000 years old? 

 

Try Mitochondrial DNA, and Helium in zircons. How did the old earthers solve the Mitochondrial DNA evidence that showed Eve = 6K years? Well, they mixed in chimp DNA to get older ages (since we're related after all  :get_a_clue: ). How did they solve the Helium in zircons problem? They didn't, other than complain about a heat problem.  



#11 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 19 July 2015 - 09:39 PM

There is one test, done by ev's on a mosasaur humerus which obtained 4.68% (of modern content) C14...equating to a date of 24,600 years.  This amount was far above the testing limits of the AMS method. They had hoped to get ZERO, to prove that they (like Mary Schweitzer, who consulted with them) had identified true dino soft tissue and not just modern bacterial biofilm.  They had abraded away the outer surfaces AND they (most importantly) tested for bacterial DNA and only got one strand...not the TONS they should have if there were 4.68% of all the carbon in the bone being from bacteria.  You can read about it here link

 

Now apparently you think all YE's assert that the earth is exactly 6000 years old.  I don't.  However, I also don't accept the idea that is implicit in all the C14 dating...that we have had constant ratios of C12/C14 for 50,000 years or more.  That alone could cause the dates obtained to be "too old"...if C14 levels were lower in the past.  So the 24,600 date could be really 10,000 or even 6,000. 



#12 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 19 July 2015 - 09:42 PM

Just finding soft dino tissue is a form of "dating" ...given that collagen degradation rates are fairly well known.  Or they WERE until the findings of Mary Schweitzer messed that all up and they now have had to do the Texas Two Step Back Step on that.  The upper limit of how long collagen lasts at 20C is 10,000 years or so. 



#13 Bill Ludlow

Bill Ludlow

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 95 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mesa, Arizona

Posted 20 July 2015 - 12:34 AM

Try Mitochondrial DNA, and Helium in zircons. How did the old earthers solve the Mitochondrial DNA evidence that showed Eve = 6K years? Well, they mixed in chimp DNA to get older ages (since we're related after all  :get_a_clue: ). How did they solve the Helium in zircons problem? They didn't, other than complain about a heat problem.  

Hi Fred,

Mitochondrial DNA and Helium in Zircons are not scientific dating methods used to assign an age to something.  No one has ever used either one as a method to date the age of the Earth. 



#14 Bill Ludlow

Bill Ludlow

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 95 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mesa, Arizona

Posted 20 July 2015 - 12:56 AM

Just finding soft dino tissue is a form of "dating" ...given that collagen degradation rates are fairly well known.  Or they WERE until the findings of Mary Schweitzer messed that all up and they now have had to do the Texas Two Step Back Step on that.  The upper limit of how long collagen lasts at 20C is 10,000 years or so. 

 

The soft tissue Dr. Schweitzer found has been explained.  I realize creationists don't like the explanation, but that does not change what the data from the tests clearly shows.  Soft tissue is not a scientific dating method though.   

"Researchers used transmission electron microscopy, electron energy loss spectroscopy, micro x-ray diffraction, and Fe micro x-ray absorption near-edge structure capabilities at the ALS to characterize the iron associated with fossil tissues, which occurred primarily as the mineral goethite. They then employed experiments to show that iron, derived from hemoglobin lysate, associated with vessels obtained from surviving ostrich bone, and that incubating bone-derived ostrich blood vessels greatly stabilized these otherwise labile materials against microbial attack and degradation.  Synchrotron microprobe techniques were used to compare the iron observed in existing hemoglobin-soaked ostrich vessels with iron associated with dinosaur vessels, and showed similar, but not identical, iron moieties. The chemical speciation of iron in the ostrich tissue was a combination of oxyhaemoglobin and a disordered Fe oxyhydroxide that was referred to as a ‘biogenic-like oxide’, whereas the dinosaur tissues were found to consist of a combination of crystalline goethite and biogenic iron oxyhydroxide.  The researchers hypothesize that these represent points on a continuum of biogenic iron to the geological mineral goethite.  This mineral is found encapsulated in molecular ‘cages’ in living systems."

http://www-als.lbl.g...oft-tissue.html



#15 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,541 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 20 July 2015 - 06:30 AM

Hi Fred,

Mitochondrial DNA and Helium in Zircons are not scientific dating methods used to assign an age to something.  No one has ever used either one as a method to date the age of the Earth. 

 

Would you care to explain what is unscientific about either method? The zircons would most certainly point to the age of the earth, while mtDNA would point to the age of homo sapiens

 

Just use mtDNA for starters, it was used by secular scientists to date mtDNA Eve, and the date came in at 6K years. What was it about their method that was unscientific?

 

Fred



#16 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,295 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 20 July 2015 - 07:41 AM

Hi Fred,

Mitochondrial DNA and Helium in Zircons are not scientific dating methods used to assign an age to something.  No one has ever used either one as a method to date the age of the Earth. 

They were used to determine the age of Mitochondrial Eve and the age of certain rocks casting doubt on the conventional aging of those (end the earth).

But how about carbon dating coal and diamonds. Or to be closer related to the Earth what about the magnetic field and distance to the moon.

 

Creation Scientists have written already extensive on this:
https://answersingen...-a-young-earth/
http://www.earthage....young_earth.htm

http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

 

Some of the issues are circumstantial, others are closer to the bone. There were attempts of rebuttal as well. And there are refutations of old earth proofs, too. 

 



#17 Bill Ludlow

Bill Ludlow

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 95 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mesa, Arizona

Posted 20 July 2015 - 10:53 AM

Mitochondrial DNA is not a method used to date the Earth.  Genomes have been sequenced that show 400,000 year old mtDNA.  Helium in Zircons is not a dating method.  Carbon dating coal and diamonds is not a method, but carbon dating is.  Carbon dating is not used to date the age of the Earth. 



#18 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 20 July 2015 - 11:17 AM

>>Carbon dating is not used to date the age of the Earth. >>

Correction.  It is not used BY AE's AND EV's to date the age of the Earth.  It is not used by them because they beg the question (a debating term meaning assuming what is under dispute).  It is assumed by them that the Earth is very old and so therefore C14 is "not appropriate" to use...even though it OFTEN obtains significant C14 and recent dates.  Another term for this is circular reasoning.

 

 


  • gilbo12345 likes this

#19 Bill Ludlow

Bill Ludlow

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 95 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mesa, Arizona

Posted 20 July 2015 - 11:41 AM

Using Carbon dating to date the Earth would not be scientific at all since it only dates things that were once alive, not rock.  



#20 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 20 July 2015 - 11:50 AM

>>Using Carbon dating to date the Earth would not be scientific at all since it only dates things that were once alive, not rock. >>

True but as you know indirect dating is done by ev's all the time.  They use ROCK to date FOSSILS...(wrongly) concluding that dinosaurs all died off 65mya.  You are probably just fine with that...right?  Similarly, a fossil which is surrounded by sediments and with rock layers above and below it, if you were able to date the carbon in tissue of a dino, that can allow you to date those rock layers within a range, and tell you when the sediment was deposited.  If you disagree, explain.


  • gilbo12345 likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users