[_ Old Earth _] Creationist Seminar

[reznwerks]

Here is a website that was sent to me in order to persuade me as to the reasons why evolution is faulty. For the unthinking it may just be what the doctor ordered . Here is the last sentence on the opening page which blows any factual claims out of the water.

"HELP US TO SPREAD THE TRUTH OF THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNT OF CREATION, BECAUSE IT IS IMPORTANT TO BELIEVE THE BIBLE TO BE ACCURATE."

So I ask , is it more important to know the truth or believe without evidence or in spite of the lack of evidence for the simple act of believing for believings sake? How do you feel when someone asks why do you believe the way you do when all you can answer is just because?

http://www.creationseminar.net/

For those of you that are still pushing the problems or percieved problems of radiometric dating this link should settle it once and for all.

http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

renzwerks:

The real heart of the age-of-the-earth debate (if "debate" is the right word) is always radiometric dating. There are lots of ways to guesstimate ages, and geologists knew the earth was old a long time ago (and I might add that they were mostly Christian creationist geologists). But they didn't know how old. Radiometric dating actually allows the measurement of absolute ages, and so it is deadly to the argument that the earth cannot be more than 10,000 years old.

Uniformitarian assumptions. How can one reasonably believe that C14 and

C12 atmospheric concentrations have been uniform in the past?

 

[reznwerks]

The real heart of the age-of-the-earth debate (if "debate" is the right word) is always radiometric dating. There are lots of ways to guesstimate ages, and geologists knew the earth was old a long time ago (and I might add that they were mostly Christian creationist geologists). But they didn't know how old. Radiometric dating actually allows the measurement of absolute ages, and so it is deadly to the argument that the earth cannot be more than 10,000 years old.

Uniformitarian assumptions. How can one reasonably believe that C14 and C12

atmospheric concentrations have been uniform in the past?

How can they reasonably believe they weren't? I think I now know how the "MYTH BUSTERS" feel.

 

[ArtGuy]

Uniformitarian assumptions. How can one reasonably believe that C14 and C12

atmospheric concentrations have been uniform in the past?

Occam's Razor? In the absence of evidence one way or another, it's simpler to assume that there has been no change than to assume there's been change. There's no evidence of change, and we know the decay rate to be constant for the past several thousand years at least.

Absent a YEC interpretation of the Bible, is there any scientific reason to believe that the decay rate has changed?

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Charlie Hatchett wrote:

Uniformitarian assumptions. How can one reasonably believe that C14 and C12

atmospheric concentrations have been uniform in the past?

Occam's Razor? In the absence of evidence one way or another, it's simpler to assume that there has been no change than to assume there's been change. There's no evidence of change, and we know the decay rate to be constant for the past several thousand years at least.

Absent a YEC interpretation of the Bible, is there any scientific reason to believe that the decay rate has changed?

Calibration Tables.

 

[ArtGuy]

Calibration Tables.

Please explain how calibration tables are positive evidence for a young earth.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Absent a YEC interpretation of the Bible, is there any scientific reason to believe that the decay rate has changed?

Calibration Tables.

Please explain how calibration tables are positive evidence for a young earth.

Calibration Tables are positive evidence that C14/C12 ratios change

For a detailed arguement of how this in turn can be used as positive

evidence of a young earth, see jwu's and my debate concerning C14 dating

a few postings below this one.

In short, massive amounts of C12 have been removed from the carbon

cycle in the past (i.e.-Permian and Pennsylvania strata). Accounting for this

loss (and keeping The First Law in mind) versus using a straight line

uniformitarian, one comes up with drastically younger ages.

 

[reznwerks]

none

Absent a YEC interpretation of the Bible, is there any scientific reason to believe that the decay rate has changed?

[quote:a080c]Calibration Tables.

Please explain how calibration tables are positive evidence for a young earth.

Calibration Tables are positive evidence that C14/C12 ratios change

For a detailed arguement of how this in turn can be used as positive

evidence of a young earth, see jwu's and my debate concerning C14 dating

a few postings below this one.

In short, massive amounts of C12 have been removed from the carbon

cycle in the past (i.e.-Permian and Pennsylvania strata). Accounting for this

loss (and keeping The First Law in mind) versus using a straight line

uniformitarian, one comes up with drastically younger ages.[/quote:a080c]
All the answers to your questions and all the responses to your hypothesis are in the original post at the end. If you really want to know it is all there. I'm guessing you don't.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

All the answers to your questions and all the responses to your hypothesis are in the original post at the end. If you really want to know it is all there. I'm guessing you don't.

I read it, and disagree with the author's uniformitarian interpretations.

How does one come up with coal AMS dated at 50,000 rcybp, AMS method,

consistently?

The AMS method improved the sensitivity of the raw measurement of the

14C/12C ratio from approximately 1% of the modern value to about

0.001%, extending the theoretical range of sensitivity from about 40,000

years to about 90,000 years. The expectation was that this improvement in

precision would make it possible to use this technique to date dramatically

older fossil material. The big surprise, however, was that no fossil material

could be found anywhere that had as little as 0.001% of the modern value!

Since most of the scientists involved assumed the standard geological time

scale was correct, the obvious explanation for the 14C they were detecting in

their samples was contamination from some source of modern carbon with

its high level of 14C. Therefore they mounted a major campaign to discover

and eliminate the sources of such contamination. Although they identified

and corrected a few relatively minor sources of 14C contamination, there still

remained a significant level of 14Câ€â€typically about 100 times the ultimate

sensitivity of the instrumentâ€â€in samples that should have been utterly

"14C-dead," including many from the deeper levels of the fossil-bearing

part of the geological record.


John R. Baumgardner, Ph.D. Geophysics/Space Physics

Los Alamos National Laboratory, Theoretical Division, New Mexico

(1984 - Present).

Here’s a few interesting papers from NASA concerning varying atmospheric

C12 levels:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/CarbonHydrology/

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/BOREASCarbon/

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Conundrum/


Are you sure your earnestly seeking truth, or just defending your

worldview? :-?

 

[reznwerks]

read

All the answers to your questions and all the responses to your hypothesis are in the original post at the end. If you really want to know it is all there. I'm guessing you don't.

I read it, and disagree with the author's uniformitarian interpretations.
You must have been heck of a student. For example there are probably several hundred articles linked to answering creationist objections and answering creationist objections was only one of several topics regarding radiometric dating.

How does one come up with coal AMS dated at 50,000 rcybp, AMS method,

consistently?
If you want to know perhaps you should reread it or if you really want to know write him a letter. Go to the link and find the homepage . I am sure he would like to speak with you.

[quote:f5ea0]

-?

[/quote:f5ea0]

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

reznwerks:

All the answers to your questions and all the responses to your hypothesis are in the original post at the end. If you really want to know it is all there. I'm guessing you don't.

charlie:

I read it, and disagree with the author's uniformitarian interpretations.

reznwerks:

You must have been heck of a student. For example there are probably several hundred articles linked to answering creationist objections and answering creationist objections was only one of several topics regarding radiometric dating.

How does one come up with coal AMS dated at 50,000 rcybp, AMS method,

consistently?

If you want to know perhaps you should reread it or if you really want to know write him a letter. Go to the link and find the homepage . I am sure he would like to speak with you.

So, in other words, you have no original thoughts of your own?


Again, are you sure your earnestly seeking truth, or just defending your

worldview?

 

[reznwerks]

thoughts

[

So, in other words, you have no original thoughts of your own?


Again, are you sure your earnestly seeking truth, or just defending your

worldview?[/quote]
My thoughts don't matter. The only thing that matters is truth and evidence to back them up.Truth isn't gauged by consensus.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

reznwerks:

My thoughts don't matter.

Sounds like a perfect candidate for brainwashing.

Dude, you should really take anything anybody says with a grain of salt

(including me...lol).

Especially if your interested in science.

A critical mind is absolutely necessary to gain new knowledge.

 

[ArtGuy]

For a detailed arguement of how this in turn can be used as positive

evidence of a young earth, see jwu's and my debate concerning C14 dating

a few postings below this one.

Well, then, I'll have to peruse that debate. I'll probably just peep from the sidelines, though - jwu knows far more than I do about this sort of thing, and I'd contribute nothing but noise.

 

[jwu]

n short, massive amounts of C12 have been removed from the carbon

cycle in the past (i.e.-Permian and Pennsylvania strata). Accounting for this

loss (and keeping The First Law in mind) versus using a straight line

The amounth of CO2 in the atmosphere has changed significantly in the past:

So yeah, a higher amount of C12 and a constant rate of C14 production would result in a lower C14/C12 ratio.

However, if a raüid change had taken place, then we should see a sudden huge jump of C14 dates, not a straight line with minor deviations. But let's keep that to the C14 thread, where i specifically asked for what C14 reading something that died right before the flood and something that died right after it should produce.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Well, then, I'll have to peruse that debate. I'll probably just peep from the sidelines, though - jwu knows far more than I do about this sort of thing, and I'd contribute nothing but noise.

Lol Art :D . Jwu's definitely been giving me a run for my money...he's

extremely sharp.

So yeah, a higher amount of C12 and a constant rate of C14 production would result in a lower C14/C12 ratio.

However, if a raüid change had taken place, then we should see a sudden huge jump of C14 dates, not a straight line with minor deviations. But let's keep that to the C14 thread, where i specifically asked for what C14 reading something that died right before the flood and something that died right after it should produce.

Holy Cow! Let me look this graph over for a bit and I'll respond...it's making

me dizzy...lol!!!

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

But let's keep that to the C14 thread, where i specifically asked for what C14 reading something that died right before the flood and something that died right after it should produce.

A specimen before the flood would show a unrealistically

older date than a specimen buried a few decades after the flood, assuming

your measuring with uniformitarian assumptions.

Assuming the flood removed considerable C12, the current calibration curve

would show pre-flood specimens as unrealistically old.

If you take into account the C12 differential in your measurements, the

pre-flood specimen lines back up on the curve.


Very nice research coming up with that graph. I've looked and looked for

that exact data, in that format and never could come up with it.

Again, nice.

 

[reznwerks]

thoughts

reznwerks:

My thoughts don't matter.

Sounds like a perfect candidate for brainwashing.
On the contrary I know enough to let the experts do what they do. I don't tell my mechanic how to fix my car.

Dude, you should really take anything anybody says with a grain of salt
I do, and you should follow your own advice when it comes to accepting claims that have no evidence.

(including me...lol).

Especially if your interested in science.

A critical mind is absolutely necessary to gain new knowledge.
When do you think you might be ready to move up and acquire some?

 

[jwu]

But let's keep that to the C14 thread, where i specifically asked for what C14 reading something that died right before the flood and something that died right after it should produce.

A specimen before the flood would show a unrealistically
older date than a specimen buried a few decades after the flood, assuming
your measuring with uniformitarian assumptions.
Assuming the flood removed considerable C12, the current calibration curve
would show pre-flood specimens as unrealistically old.
If you take into account the C12 differential in your measurements, the
pre-flood specimen lines back up on the curve.

How old specifically? There should have been a specific ratio of C12/C14 in the pre flood atmosphere (of course i still dispute that the flood took place in first instance). Why do we get a near constant reading in correlation to various independent methods such as river varves?

The infamous suigestu graph again:

Where is the jump, and why does it agree with coral samples of three different locations as well as tree rings?
Note that the entire lake and its varves would have to be considered post flood. That's interesting as it implies that if a flood happened and C14 is unreliable, then even things younger than 4200 years would have to give a 40.000 years reading. How do you explain that?

Especially since objects of known age have been consisently successfully dated, such as egyptian mummies or the remains of the victims of Pompeji.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Where is the jump, and why does it agree with coral samples of three different locations as well as tree rings?
Note that the entire lake and its varves would have to be considered post flood. That's interesting as it implies that if a flood happened and C14 is unreliable, then even things younger than 4200 years would have to give a 40.000 years reading. How do you explain that?

Especially since objects of known age have been consisently successfully dated, such as egyptian mummies or the remains of the victims of Pompeji.

I'll research further, but off the cuff I would say anything that registers within

the "range" of C14 dating is post flood. If you get a chance, try calculating

the difference in ratios between now and Mid-Cambrian...a quick glance

looks like it's around a 2000% difference...I'm guessing it would be

recorded as beyond range.

Sorry I'm being so tentative, but I'm here at work. If you get a chance,

can you check the calulations more precisely..if I remember from previous

debates, your pretty much a math wiz.

Thanks, and I'll be more thorough tonight and tomorrow when I'm off.

Oh, p.s.- a literal intepretation of Genesis puts the flood at 4304 calendar

years before present.

And remember, the C14 dating used to date the mummies and victims at

Pompei is subject to the same C12 variations we've been discussing.

This stuff gets confusing!! :-?