[_ Old Earth _] Alright, time for some answers

[Barbarian]

The unexplained part has to do with "equilibrium" of the atmosphere. "Dr. Libby’s calculations showed that if the earth started with no 14C in the atmosphere, it would take up to 30,000 years to build up to a steady state (equilibrium)."

A huge assumption, given the known flux of ionizing radiation from the Sun.

We are told: "The Specific Production Rate (SPR) [or the input spout] of C-14 is known to be 18.8 atoms per gram of total carbon per minute. The Specific Decay Rate (SDR) [the output spout] is known to be only 16.1 disintegrations per gram per minute.3"

Given that these statement comprise material facts regarding the subject and there is no error it would seem to me that the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere would be gradually increasing (not going toward equilibrium). Am I missing something? For instance, does the "decay rate" apply only to the artifact and not the atmosphere? <--- that would be my guess, but there are still some questions that arise and it seems we don't have the information needed to determine the right conclusion.

The conclusion that is being examined is based on the idea that if the atmosphere isn't at equilibrium that necessarily means that the earth is less than 30,000 years old. That's what we are being told is the "troubling" part.

The concentration in the atmosphere is known for many thousands of years from lake varves, as Lord Kalvan mentioned.

 

[Sparkey]

I think that I've made a mistake by asking for the impossible. "If conditions were as described in the Bible pre-flood," is a small phrase with large implications. no rainfall? No need to till the ground? A "mist" that rose up from the ground and watered the "whole face" of the ground? Unknown (to today) types of trees... Different types of animals also unknown today (serpents with legs), although it would seems reasonable that many are same or similar (ie. cattle, foul, beasts of the field).

Also there were rivers but the question about the water cycle, evaporation, rain, snow, spring runoff comes up, right? In the absence of rainfall (and I would presume snow also) how does the water cycle to provide for river flow? Something outside of our experience.

If such a thing as the magnetic field of the earth has significance (and it does) -- it would seem relatively minor in comparision to the implications from these statements. It's unfair of me to ask for naturalists to assume biblical pre-flood conditions when it is so far outside our ability to understand.

Sparrowhawke

 

[Barbarian]

If Genesis is a literal history, and conditions were literally what is written in Genesis, then it was a time when nature did not work as it does today, and we can make no guesses at all in terms of science.

 

[Sparkey]

If Genesis is a literal history, and conditions were literally what is written in Genesis, then it was a time when nature did not work as it does today, and we can make no guesses at all in terms of science.

Yep, an either-or situation. Either Genesis does not accurately describe the conditions on earth during the time between Adam and Noah -and- things have continued much as we see them today throughout history and beyond...

Or: things are as we are told in the bible and "science" can make no guess regarding conditions before the flood.

 

[Barbarian]

Given that the history of the Earth remains in the rocks from long before humans got here, I'd say that supports the evidence in scripture for an allegorical Genesis.

 

[Sparkey]

He was talking about divorce but Jesus believed:

(Mar 10:5-6 KJV) - "And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."

Not only did Jesus believe that His Father created Adam and Eve at the beginning, he also spoke of their son Abel in a very literal sense as well as many other historical facts that some would rather believe are allegorical.

Adam and Eve as the first married couple ([URL="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Matthew%2019.3%E2%80%936"]Matthew 19:3–6[/URL]; [URL="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Mark%2010.3%E2%80%939"]Mark 10:3–9[/URL])
Abel as the first prophet who was killed ([URL="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2011.50%E2%80%9351"]Luke 11:50–51[/URL])
Noah and the Flood ([URL="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Matthew%2024.38%E2%80%9339"]Matthew 24:38–39[/URL])
Moses and the serpent in the wilderness ([URL="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/John%203.14"]John 3:14[/URL])
Moses and the manna from heaven to feed the Israelites in the wilderness ([URL="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/John%206.32%E2%80%9333"]John 6:32–33, 49[/URL])
The experiences of Lot and his wife ([URL="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2017.28%E2%80%9332"]Luke 17:28–32[/URL])
The judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah ([URL="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Matthew%2010.15"]Matthew 10:15[/URL])
The miracles of Elijah ([URL="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%204.25%E2%80%9327"]Luke 4:25–27[/URL])
And Jonah and the big fish ([URL="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Matthew%2012.40%E2%80%93%2041"]Matthew 12:40– 41[/URL]).

Jesus did not allegorize these accounts but took them as straightforward history, describing events that actually happened just as the Old Testament describes. Jesus used these scriptures to teach His disciples that other REAL events, such as His death, Resurrection, and Second Coming would happen.

 

[Barbarian]

(Mar 10:5-6 KJV) - "And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."

Not only did Jesus believe that His Father created Adam and Eve at the beginning, he also spoke of their son Abel in a very literal sense as well as many other historical facts that some would rather believe are allegorical.

Genesis 1:1 makes it very clear what was there from the beginning of creation, and neither male nor female were there. Since God cannot contradict Himself, Jesus was speaking of the beginning of humans.

 

[lordkalvan]

Greetings lordkalvan, I hope things are well for you.

Maybe we're missing the essence of the question which I see as, "Can you tell me about the meaning behind the fact that the atmosphere hasn't reached equilibrium?"

The pertinent quote that I extract would be, "In Dr. Libby’s original work, he noted that the atmosphere did not appear to be in equilibrium."

Frankly, I lack the knowledge and expertise to address this question but it seems that an analogy of a barrel with both input and output spouts might serve as useful for picturing the activity. Given that the input was steady (which represents the change rate, right?) or that it is steady within a factor of 10%, and the output is known (that would be the decay rate, after the organism dies and stops taking up any more material) -- there is still something unexplained.

The unexplained part has to do with "equilibrium" of the atmosphere. "Dr. Libby’s calculations showed that if the earth started with no 14C in the atmosphere, it would take up to 30,000 years to build up to a steady state (equilibrium)."

We are told: "The Specific Production Rate (SPR) [or the input spout] of C-14 is known to be 18.8 atoms per gram of total carbon per minute. The Specific Decay Rate (SDR) [the output spout] is known to be only 16.1 disintegrations per gram per minute.3"

Given that these statement comprise material facts regarding the subject and there is no error it would seem to me that the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere would be gradually increasing (not going toward equilibrium). Am I missing something?

Long answer short, the 'missing' part of the equation is that neither C14 production nor disintegration are constant. Simple cases in point, both the industrial revolution and atmospheric nuclear weapons' tests affected c14 production rates. Natural variations in C14 production also occur as a result of cosmic ray flux and changes in earth's magnetic field.

For instance, does the "decay rate" apply only to the artifact and not the atmosphere? <--- that would be my guess, but there are still some questions that arise and it seems we don't have the information needed to determine the right conclusion.

In terms of dating organic material, the decay rate relevant applies to C14 taken up by the material until the point of death. This can be affected by environmental factors and C14 levels generally. Because of these variables, calibration is required to allow raw C14 date to be converted into a calendar date. Generally, calibration requires that younger calendar ages be attributed to material than indicated by the raw C14 dates, which can be up to 1000 years too 'old' for material dated at 7000 years BP.

The conclusion that is being examined is based on the idea that if the atmosphere isn't at equilibrium that necessarily means that the earth is less than 30,000 years old. That's what we are being told is the "troubling" part.

It is only troubling if you assume that C14 production rates must always have exceeded disintegration rates. Evidence put forward by researchers like Professor Stuiver indicates that this is not the case.

Thanks again for your explanation, but I still don't have it "nailed down" sufficiently in my understanding of the problem to form an opinion and would appreciate your analysis.

I hope this brief discussion has clarified the picture somewhat.

 

[lordkalvan]

The difference between paradigms or views include differing assumptions. Seems to me that if scientists who take an "old age" earth stance wish to objectively critique the other side, they would do well to set aside the view that a world-wide flood is impossible and out of the question.

It appears to be 'out of the question' in terms of what we know about the geology and ecology of Earth over the last several hundreds of millions of years. It also seems to be 'out of the question' in terms of the findings of 19th Century clergymen-scientists (and others), educated and believing in a global flood of biblical proportions occurring within (relatively) recent history, who went looking for evidence of the Noachian deluge and rather quickly came to the conclusion that no such credible evidence existed.

What if we assume that a world-wide flood happened and due to this catastrophic event all biotic material was submerged sometime between 4-5k years ago? This certainly would change things, right?....

Generally, in order to reasonably assume any such thing we would need to find evidence to support the assumption. We would also need to explain how our understanding of historical, archaeological, geological and palaeontological evidence is so awry.

 

[Sparkey]

Long answer short, the 'missing' part of the equation is that neither C14 production nor disintegration are constant. Simple cases in point, both the industrial revolution and atmospheric nuclear weapons' tests affected c14 production rates. Natural variations in C14 production also occur as a result of cosmic ray flux and changes in earth's magnetic field.

In terms of dating organic material, the decay rate relevant applies to C14 taken up by the material until the point of death. This can be affected by environmental factors and C14 levels generally. Because of these variables, calibration is required to allow raw C14 date to be converted into a calendar date. Generally, calibration requires that younger calendar ages be attributed to material than indicated by the raw C14 dates, which can be up to 1000 years too 'old' for material dated at 7000 years BP.

It is only troubling if you assume that C14 production rates must always have exceeded disintegration rates. Evidence put forward by researchers like Professor Stuiver indicates that this is not the case.

I hope this brief discussion has clarified the picture somewhat.

Thanks and yes, that does help.

Have you had a chance to examine the link from post #38? I know there's a lot of information there but he spoke directly about assumptions #2 and #4. It seems that you agree with his assessment of assumption #2, that the C-14/C-12 ratio in the Biosphere (equilibrium) has NOT remained constant. What are your thoughts about #4, being: The specimen had not gained any carbon since it was buried. Of course, his assumptions are based on the shared belief that the flood happened; if that is so far "out of the question" for you to do other than flatly deny, I'll understand. I honestly believe that is as I said to Barbarian, "if conditions were literally what is written in Genesis we can make no guesses at all".

 

[Sparkey]

Genesis 1:1 makes it very clear what was there from the beginning of creation, and neither male nor female were there. Since God cannot contradict Himself, Jesus was speaking of the beginning of humans.

Jesus not only spoke of the "beginning of humans" (which He called the "beginning of creation") but also spoke of the flood. Surely He read and knew the Scriptures. He taught about the end from the beginning.

"For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be."
​

Peter, having been taught by Jesus, also believed as seen in 1Pet chapter 3 (NKJV):

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, by whom he went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. There is also an antitype which now saves us -- baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God) though the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
​

​

 

[Sparkey]

(Ecc 3:11 KJV) - "He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end."
____________________________________________

I don't read Ecclesiastes all that much but it is, strangely, one of my favorite books. While looking at the Scripture that deal with the flood and all, I stumbled upon the above quote. The thing that stuck me was the use of the word, "world". God set the "world?" in their heart. He did it so that no man could find out the work He made from beginning to the end.

So I wondered what it was that He was talking about there.

Ecclesiastes 3 is a very well known part of the bible due to the popularity of the Simon and Garfunkle song. You know it. It starts out: (Ecc 3:1 KJV) - "To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven"

Verse 11 (quoted above) is almost a non-sequitur. So I looked at the meaning of the word, "world" to try to figure out what it was that God did to obscure His workings so that "man could not find out the work He made from beginning to end."

Here's the definition (from Strong's):
also, He hath set the "world" עוֹלָם (`owlam ) in their heart...

1) long duration, antiquity, futurity, for ever, ever, everlasting, evermore, perpetual, old, ancient, world
a) ancient time, long time (of past)
b) (of future)
1) for ever, always
2) continuous existence, perpetual
3) everlasting, indefinite or unending future, eternity
​

My conclusion is that I still don't know what this means. But then I compared
(Ecc 8:17 KJV) - "Then I beheld all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because though a man labour to seek it out, yet he shall not find it; yea further; though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it."

Here then is an article about Ecclesiastes 3:11 (and what it was that God put in hearts) for further contemplation:
"Eternity" in our Hearts

 

[Barbarian]

Jesus not only spoke of the "beginning of humans" (which He called the "beginning of creation")

So he treated that as an allegory for creation. Which is not surprising.

but also spoke of the flood. Surely He read and knew the Scriptures. He taught about the end from the beginning.

"For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be."

We don't know if there was a literal flood or if it was an allegory. I am skeptical of the idea that if Jesus mentions an allegory, that changes it.

On the other hand, since the Bible doesn't mention a worldwide flood but only over the entire land, it's possible that there was such a flood. The flooding of the Black Sea basin was at about the right time, and of Biblical proportions.

But either way, it does nothing to deny the fact of evolution.

 

[Sparkey]

I wasn't actually speaking about evolution. By the way, I don't "deny" evolution either, only parts of the theory are wrong --still, that's another matter.

What I was wondering about was how the flood (given that it happened) might have affected carbon-14 dating. I was asking somebody to go out on a limb and do a "what-if" scenario.

 

[Sparkey]

The problem that I see with making an allegory of an allegory -- where the Creation Week is symbolically representative of something else, THEN

Taking the words of Christ and making them into another allegorical statement, where, when he spoke of Adam and Eve, or Able -- and spoke of that in the context of "the beginning" -- where we make that context allegorical too ...

The problem is then we have a case were Jesus speaks about allegorical stuff to teach about His resurrection or His 2nd Coming. It would be easy to believe that these too were allegorical. The 2nd coming of Christ could be something like the JW's taught. Doctrine, established on the Rock of Salvation, becomes more like sand.

That's the problem.

 

[jasoncran]

the jews base their religious week on the literal six day creation. the shabat always starts a sunset in jerusalem as all feasts when the moon is shown. that is based on the genesis one account.

when i did channukah i started it on jerusalem time that was adjusted by me for in est.

 

[zeke]

I wasn't actually speaking about evolution. By the way, I don't "deny" evolution either, only parts of the theory are wrong --still, that's another matter.

What I was wondering about was how the flood (given that it happened) might have affected carbon-14 dating. I was asking somebody to go out on a limb and do a "what-if" scenario.

The flood did happen and the 'dating game' is based on *uniformitarianism*, i.e., the notion that the processes that operate on this planet today are the same processes that operated on this planet in the past and these processes have remained constant throughout the history. But the Bible and geological history tell us that *catastrophism* has changed many of the Earth’s features as a result of cataclysmic events.

 

[zeke]

But either way, it does nothing to deny the fact of evolution.

Are you floating the notion that the Bible supports classical Darwinian evolution? You do distinguish between biological evolution (science) and Darwinian myth - right? Could you please define "evolution" as you are using it in the above post? Thanks.

 

[Barbarian]

Are you floating the notion that the Bible supports classical Darwinian evolution?

Just pointing out that evolutionary theory (including Darwin's theory as well) is completely compatible with the Bible.

You do distinguish between biological evolution (science) and Darwinian myth - right?

Sounds like someone's taken advantage of your trust in them. Which of the four points of Darwinian theory do you take as myth?

Could you please define "evolution" as you are using it in the above post?

Change in allele frequency over time. Takes in everything from variation within a species to common descent of all living things on Earth. But do tell us about the "myth."

 

[Barbarian]

The flood did happen and the 'dating game' is based on *uniformitarianism*, i.e., the notion that the processes that operate on this planet today are the same processes that operated on this planet in the past and these processes have remained constant throughout the history.

So far, every time we check, that holds.

But the Bible and geological history tell us that *catastrophism* has changed many of the Earth’s features as a result of cataclysmic events.

You do know that uniformitarianism predicts catastrophes, right?